[cabfpub] IPR Policy Task Force call tomorrow (Tuesday)

Kirk Hall Kirk.Hall at entrustdatacard.com
Mon Jan 9 17:14:08 MST 2017


We have an IPR Policy Task Force call tomorrow (Tuesday), so let’s discuss Ballot 183 then.  With luck, it will be our last Task Force call, and we can formally start the process for adopting Ballot 183.

I will follow up tomorrow with a message on the PAG formation, and I suggest the PAG use the same time slot (alternate Tuesdays at 9 am Pacific / 12:00 noon Eastern) that we have been using for the IPR Policy Task Force.  Our first teleconference would be on Tues. Jan. 24, but we would be pulling together an agenda and information before that date.

From: vfournier at apple.com [mailto:vfournier at apple.com]
Sent: Monday, January 9, 2017 3:41 PM
To: Kirk Hall <Kirk.Hall at entrustdatacard.com>
Cc: CA/Browser Forum Public Discussion List <public at cabforum.org>
Subject: Re: [cabfpub] Proposed Ballot 183 (Ballot process)

Hi Kirk,

I thought you were asking for this in your comments, where you said:

"What if the PAG?s conclusion is ?do not adopt this ballot / guideline because of IP issues??  Under the language above, could the proposer and endorser say ?We don?t care what the PAG thinks, we are going to call for a revote of our ballot as written??

You list an alternative course of action in subsection (l)(ii) ?*** if the PAG recommends approval despite the Exclusion Notices, and if the proposer and endorsers decide to proceed ***.?  That seems pretty clear, but that only addresses the case where the PAG recommends approval.  Can we clarify what happens procedurally if the PAG recommends some outcome other than ?approval??

Maybe delete the last sentence of (l)(i), and then amend the first sentence of (l)(ii) to read as follows (to address all possible cases after the PAG provides its conclusion):

(ii) after the PAG has provided its conclusion, if the PAG recommends approval despite the Exclusion Notices, and if the proposer and endorsers decide to proceed, then: *** [all the same procedures you listed].

I think this would not result in an endless cycle of Review Periods and PAGs ? for example, if the PAG conclusion says ?don?t adopt this ballot because of IP conflicts? and the proponent and endorsers decide to put the ballot up to a vote anyway (maybe with minor edits), the vote would be up-or-down ? but no new Review Period required.  If the PAG says ?adopt this ballot ? it?s fine? then the same result ? proceed to a revote without another Review Period.  However, if the PAG says ?adopt but only if big changes are made as follows?, then the proponent and endorsers would have to redraft a new ballot and it would go through full IP review again.”

As I mentioned previously, there would be no infinite loop.  Per Section 7.3.2.a of the IPR policy, the PAG could disregard any Exclusion Notices it had already considered.




Best regards,

Virginia Fournier
Senior Standards Counsel
 Apple Inc.
☏ 669-227-9595
✉︎ vmf at apple.com<mailto:vmf at apple.com>





On Jan 9, 2017, at 3:33 PM, Kirk Hall <Kirk.Hall at entrustdatacard.com<mailto:Kirk.Hall at entrustdatacard.com>> wrote:

Virginia, you added a new subsection (l) (iii) as follows:

(iii)  If the PAG recommends that the Forum not proceed with the Ballot, and the proposer and endorsers decide to proceed anyway, a new Draft Guidelines Ballot must be proposed, and must go through the steps described in Sections 2.3(c) through (l) above.  In addition, the new Draft Guidelines Ballot must include the PAG’s report on the Exclusion Notices for the original Ballot.

Do we face the infinite loop problem here?

•       Ballot 1 – Exclusion Noticed filed – PAG formed – PAG recommends to Forum that the ballot not proceed
•       Proposer/endorsers decide to proceed anyway, with no changes to the ballot.  Under (l)(ii)(a), normally that would just be an up-or-down vote and no further Review Period or PAG work.  However, under new (iii), the proposer/endorsers have to take Ballot 1 and resubmit it as new Ballot 2 (with no changes), and the steps of 2.3 (c) through (l) are repeated.  Again, same Exclusion Notices filed – PAG formed – PAG recommends to Forum that the ballot not proceed, etc.
•       Proposer/endorsers decide to proceed anyway.  Here we go again – Ballot 3 filed (identical), etc.

Am I misinterpreting this new language?

I think we don’t really need (iii) – I think that after a PAG has completed its work and said “don’t approve this”, if the proposer/endorsers want to have a vote anyway we should probably just hold the vote, with no further fuss.  The Members will all be aware of the results of the PAG and its recommendations not to approve the ballot.

From: Public [mailto:public-bounces at cabforum.org] On Behalf Of Virginia Fournier via Public
Sent: Monday, January 9, 2017 10:44 AM
To: 'management at cabforum.org<mailto:management at cabforum.org>' (management at cabforum.org<mailto:management at cabforum.org>) <management at cabforum.org<mailto:management at cabforum.org>>; CA/Browser Forum Public Discussion List <public at cabforum.org<mailto:public at cabforum.org>>
Cc: Virginia Fournier <vfournier at apple.com<mailto:vfournier at apple.com>>
Subject: [cabfpub] Proposed Ballot 183 (Ballot process)

Hi Kirk and all,

Please see my responses to your comments below.  I’ve also attached an updated draft with redlines to show changes from the last draft.  The diagram is also included for those who may not have seen it.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://cabforum.org/pipermail/public/attachments/20170110/be4c87ae/attachment-0001.html>


More information about the Public mailing list