[cabfpub] Proposed Ballot 183 (Ballot process)

Kirk Hall Kirk.Hall at entrustdatacard.com
Mon Jan 9 19:22:23 UTC 2017

Reposting my comments from yesterday here – Virginia has responded in her message to the Public list today.


Here are some preliminary comments, which I will repost to the Public list once Ballot 183 is posted there.

I should point out to other members that this ballot proposes an entirely new voting Bylaw (Bylaw 2.3) that supplements our existing voting Bylaw (Bylaw 2.2) but does not change it.  If this ballot is adopted, our existing Bylaw 2.2 will continue to be the voting procedure for new ballots that do not change the BRs, EVGL, etc. – so we will use Bylaw 2.2 on ballots that amend the Bylaws, elect officers, etc.

New Bylaw 2.3 (in the draft Ballot 183) will be used for ballots that amend the BRs, EVGL, etc. (known as “Maintenance Guidelines” in our IPR Policy) and for ballots that propose entirely new sets of guidelines or requirements (known as “Final Guidelines” in our IPR Policy).  Those types of ballots require an IP Review Period, possible Exclusion Notices, etc., and so this new Bylaw 2.3 creates clear voting rules for how we handle that.  You will notice that many of the provisions in Bylaw 2.2 are repeated in Bylaw 2.3, but Bylaw 2.3 includes new provisions relevant to ballots that are subject to an IP review period, etc., especially subsections (i) through (l), and are intended to harmonize with the IPR Policy we all have signed.

In subsection c - is there an unneeded quotation mark at the end of the third sentence?

In subsection e - maybe change “7-day” to “seven-day” for consistency.

In subsection j - I realize that the IPR Policy only requires Members to send Exclusion Notices to the Chair.  In this section the Chair must publish all Exclusion Notices received to the Public list at the end of the Review Period.  However, Members might want to see what other Members are filing.  Would the Chair be permitted to post Exclusion Notices received immediately to the Public list, and not wait until the end of the Review Period?

Subsection (k) as written seems to say that a ballot that is approved by vote does not become effective until after the end of the Review Period and only if no Exclusion Notices are filed during the Review Period (it says “the results of the Initial Vote are deemed to be final and approved” at that point).  Is that the intention?  That’s probably the best result if we want to avoid confusion about the status of a ballot – CAs should wait for the end of the Review Period before relying on the ballot.

Subsection (l)(i) includes a slight ambiguity, to my thinking.  It says the following:

(l)  If Exclusion Notice(s) are filed during the Review Period ***

(i) a Patent Advisory Group (PAG) will be formed, in accordance with Section 7 of the IPR Policy, to address the conflict.  The PAG will make a conclusion as described in Section 7.3.2 of the IPR Policy, and communicate such conclusion to the rest of the Forum, using the Member Mail List and the Public Mail List.  The proposer and endorsers of the Draft Guideline Ballot will then decide how to proceed, including whether to proceed with the Draft Guideline Ballot ***

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.

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' (management at cabforum.org) <management at cabforum.org>; CA/Browser Forum Public Discussion List <public at cabforum.org>
Cc: Virginia Fournier <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://lists.cabforum.org/pipermail/public/attachments/20170109/427af58a/attachment-0003.html>

More information about the Public mailing list