[cabfpub] Review Notices

[Ryan Sleevi]

Yup. I think the important aspect of all of this is that we have a single,
unified document with any/all proposed changes at the time of the Review
Notice, so there is zero ambiguity as to what is being reviewed.

On Mon, Feb 5, 2018 at 4:24 PM, Tim Hollebeek <tim.hollebeek at digicert.com>
wrote:

> I support this, because the technology we are currently using offers the
> option of viewing the final document without redlining if you so choose.
>
>
>
> -Tim
>
>
>
> *From:* Public [mailto:public-bounces at cabforum.org] *On Behalf Of *Rich
> Smith via Public
> *Sent:* Monday, February 5, 2018 2:17 PM
> *To:* 'Ryan Sleevi' <sleevi at google.com>; 'CA/Browser Forum Public
> Discussion List' <public at cabforum.org>; 'Kirk Hall' <
> Kirk.Hall at entrustdatacard.com>
>
> *Subject:* Re: [cabfpub] Review Notices
>
>
>
> I think Ryan and Kirk are both right.  Ryan in that for effective review
> the change must be reviewed and understood as part of the whole, Kirk in
> that sending out the whole document without redlining the specific changes
> under review also makes review more difficult.  I propose that we change
> such that we keep the requirement to send out the full document text, but
> permit (encourage?) redlining of the ballot changes to which the review
> notice pertains.  Thoughts?
>
>
>
> Regards,
>
> Rich Smith
>
> Sr. Compliance Manager
>
> Comodo CA
>
>
>
> *From:* Public [mailto:public-bounces at cabforum.org
> <public-bounces at cabforum.org>] *On Behalf Of *Ryan Sleevi via Public
> *Sent:* Monday, February 5, 2018 8:41 AM
> *To:* Kirk Hall <Kirk.Hall at entrustdatacard.com>; CA/Browser Forum Public
> Discussion List <public at cabforum.org>
> *Subject:* Re: [cabfpub] Review Notices
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> 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
> <https://clicktime.symantec.com/a/1/hHFNnihCuHmsx2ziIZMvB0probT7LQyg_S8J66ioBhc=?d=Z-LIx8S6FBpmwtp1rorI_gmqo2i0YfYd6ogDM0C6D3eGoHe9tWTm4_l7BVnIvveK6U4DGVVbzJ4mlA5GGOXyrokOShO02ACOc3FpRXGpV41krcM0JuHJJF4yvVFto0n1ixVnopDMDccxeE0DjyEywdVk3uPkU4hnM30Rmavxi3s8ilpgCk3SgDfFyjkBmE-TBmI3XAeXBzUxQkALT55r9Jty9Mq02ClPcoSR9__Qq890Fz-f_gB6lGQ1y0cYD2eMmg8Q-ivswbxXX_6mb5yObU8DG3g-yt6W6mlFMQfUIG9xXCEkZmTvVjyCMDxjtVXwuWh7y1mxjeqOfST_XRCa4AydExkIBWVsip50-PV8BMI8sZk4fFg35-yyPP0%3D&u=https%3A%2F%2Fcabforum.org%2Fpipermail%2Fpublic%2F2018-February%2F012903.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
> <https://clicktime.symantec.com/a/1/_EEOqTaG5lcC7I0UzaONbMg2q1HSGRLfu9fW2wMG9vA=?d=Z-LIx8S6FBpmwtp1rorI_gmqo2i0YfYd6ogDM0C6D3eGoHe9tWTm4_l7BVnIvveK6U4DGVVbzJ4mlA5GGOXyrokOShO02ACOc3FpRXGpV41krcM0JuHJJF4yvVFto0n1ixVnopDMDccxeE0DjyEywdVk3uPkU4hnM30Rmavxi3s8ilpgCk3SgDfFyjkBmE-TBmI3XAeXBzUxQkALT55r9Jty9Mq02ClPcoSR9__Qq890Fz-f_gB6lGQ1y0cYD2eMmg8Q-ivswbxXX_6mb5yObU8DG3g-yt6W6mlFMQfUIG9xXCEkZmTvVjyCMDxjtVXwuWh7y1mxjeqOfST_XRCa4AydExkIBWVsip50-PV8BMI8sZk4fFg35-yyPP0%3D&u=https%3A%2F%2Fcabforum.org%2Fpipermail%2Fpublic%2F2017-January%2F009181.html>
> was the resultant mail that contained those documents
>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://cabforum.org/pipermail/public/attachments/20180205/8538b0d7/attachment-0001.html>