[cabfpub] [EXTERNAL]Re: Fixing our voting process, again

[Gervase Markham]

On 25/09/17 21:42, Kirk Hall wrote:
> Given the other issues we are encountering, perhaps we should consider a
> separate provision with an “emergency clause” where a ballot goes into
> effect on the final date of voting (before the Review Period) – but this
> would need a higher yes vote, like 80% of voting CAs and 2/3 of voting
> browsers.  There would be an IP danger during the subsequent Review
> Period (each CA proceeds at its own risk), but at least we wouldn’t have
> to wait 30 days from a successful vote for a change to the BRs to become
> effective.
> 
> Gerv – would you support that concept?  Most legislatures have similar
> provisions when they need a new law to take effect immediately.

We cannot force CAs to take on IP risk.

So there's a difference between a CA MAY do something during the IP
period, and a CA MUST do something during the IP period. The latter, I
don't think we can do. The former is more plausible. It would not need a
different threshold, because it would just be permitting another option.
But I still think it's problematic because, as Ryan says, things only go
into effect when they are in a published version of the BRs, and that
happens at the end of IP review. If we allowed this, we could have
version 1.6.4 coming into effect before 1.6.3 - except that 1.6.4 would
contain the changes from 1.6.3, so ????.

Gerv