[cabfpub] Review Notices

[Ryan Sleevi]

On Sun, Feb 4, 2018 at 9:00 PM, Kirk Hall via Public <public at cabforum.org>
wrote:

> Virginia – we have been following the steps you listed below, and have
> been sending out “Review Notices” since Ballot 190 that included the
> specific Ballot language in “track changes” mode showing how our guidelines
> (BRs or EVGL) were amended by each Ballot – I believed that this complied
> with our Bylaws shown below.
>
>
>
> Unfortunately, as Ryan pointed out a few days ago, our Review Notices
> can’t include just the *specific* Ballot language showing the changes
> that were made by the Ballot, but must include “*a complete draft of the
> Draft Guideline* [i.e., the *entire* BR or EVGL document itself] that is
> the subject of such notice”.  Oddly enough, the IPR Agreement language
> doesn’t allow the “Draft Guideline” that is sent with the Review Notice to
> show what changes were made by the Ballot, so it’s not very helpful to
> Members for their IP review.
>

Kirk,

If you recall our last discussions of the IP Policy, this was an
intentional decision, and one we rather thoroughly discussed in the context
of multiple ballots being pursued in parallel.

Given that the decision to add or remove language has IP connotations in
its surrounding textual environment, the choice to provide a fully
integrated copy (the one "true" version) was the only method that would
allow for effective and meaningful review of the IP obligations. Given, for
example, the failure to publish timely 'full' copies in a reliable way,
this is perhaps proof positive of the potential challenges that would exist
if your 'redline-only' IP policy were adopted.

I'm not sure how Entrust is doing its IP review, but having a full document
with all of the necessary obligations is how Google does its review, and a
number of members expressed similar views, and a number of SDOs follow
similar approaches.

Regarding the proposed Ballot Range - I happened to pick Ballot 187 as the
start of examples rather intentionally in my list at
https://cabforum.org/pipermail/public/2018-February/012903.html

Ballot 183 was the bylaws
Ballot 184 did not progress
Ballot 185 failed
Ballot 186 did not progress
Ballot 187 was the first, post 180/181/182 set of changes to modify the BRs

182 did not progress due to the formation of the PAG
180, 181, and 182 each proposed to adopt the full documents, but as you
recall, used a process that the Forum had never exercised before, even
under its previous IPR Policy (namely, the review being kicked off prior to
voting, and without the full text or redline provided). There was
sufficient ambiguity with that process which was itself problematic.

https://cabforum.org/pipermail/public/2017-January/009181.html was the
resultant mail that contained those documents
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://cabforum.org/pipermail/public/attachments/20180205/d37a2122/attachment.html>