[cabfpub] Volunteers needed to serve on a Patent Advisory Group (PAG) for Ballot 182
Kirk.Hall at entrustdatacard.com
Tue Jan 3 22:54:49 UTC 2017
Virginia, do you think we should be voting on Ballot 182 (even though three Exclusion Notices were filed) as Ryan suggests? I was under the impression that the Exclusion Notices interrupted voting so the matter could go to a PAG for conclusions (such as possible modification to the ballot to avoid the IP conflict).
Do you want to respond to Ryan on this?
From: Ryan Sleevi [mailto:sleevi at google.com]
Sent: Tuesday, January 3, 2017 2:45 PM
To: Kirk Hall <Kirk.Hall at entrustdatacard.com>
Cc: CA/Browser Forum Public Discussion List <public at cabforum.org>
Subject: Re: [cabfpub] Volunteers needed to serve on a Patent Advisory Group (PAG) for Ballot 182
On Tue, Jan 3, 2017 at 2:32 PM, Kirk Hall <Kirk.Hall at entrustdatacard.com<mailto:Kirk.Hall at entrustdatacard.com>> wrote:
I don’t know the answer to all your questions – the only thing we have to go on is Sec. 7.1 and 7.3 of the IPR Policy, which I included in my call for volunteers. We can discuss on the first PAG call.
These are critical to resolve as soon as possible, given that voting concludes on this Ballot on Jan 7.
I do believe the filing of Exclusion Notices stops a ballot under consideration from proceeding to a vote – instead, the proposed ballot is submitted to the PAG for its conclusions on how to “resolve the conflict” where an Exclusion Notice was filed without offer of a royalty free license.
While you may personally believe this, I don't believe anything in the Bylaws or the IPR Policy support your belief. I am hoping you could provide further evidence that the vote is suspended.
Beyond the fundamental argument against the position (which is that the text does not support it), I will highlight two further passages that would conflict with your statement, and would otherwise support that voting on Ballot 182 has officially started, and will not end until Jan 7.
1) The IPR Policy, Section 7.3.2, notes the possibility that "e. The Final Guideline or Final Maintenance Guideline should be rescinded." - indicating that it's both possible and anticipated that such claims still are included in FMGs
2) The Bylaws, Section 2.2, notes that "The CA/Browser Forum shall provide seven calendar-days for voting, with the deadline clearly communicated via the members’ electronic mailing list. All voting will take place online via the members’ electronic mailing list. "
In your notice, submitted November 1, 2016 to the CA/B Forum's Members-Only list, as chair, you stated that Ballot 182:
Status: Final Guideline
Vote for Approval (7 days) - Dec 31, 2016 to Jan 7, 2016
As such, I would like to state that I believe voting has officially opened on this Ballot. Any other interpretation seems to fundamentally call into question whether this Ballot was "a Ballot", and thus introduce questions about the nature of members' exclusion notices, and as such, would no doubt result in further IPR issues down the road. It may be that Ballot 182 fails for lack of Quorum, if insufficient members vote for it, but it would mean that any reintroduction would need to be accompanied by a similar 60 day review period.
It may be that members vote No, and the Ballot fails with quorum. In which case, a future Ballot may be introduced, either amending or replacing the Guidelines, undergoing the appropriate review period. It may be that such a ballot waits for the completion of a PAG, it may not be.
In either event, it seems that, come January 7, Ballot 182 MUST be considered closed for voting. If the Chair disagrees, it would be helpful to know as soon as possible, to ensure that members are fully informed of the value and/or risk of their votes.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Public