[cabfpub] Draft Bylaws 5.6 - Subcommittees of the CA/Browser Forum

[Ryan Sleevi]

On Tue, Oct 16, 2018 at 1:12 AM Kirk Hall <Kirk.Hall at entrustdatacard.com>
wrote:

> I think you are mistaken in your first point – there were several people
> who spoke in favor of keeping governance change issues at the Forum level
> in some way (e.g. an informal group Forum members working together, or a
> “Committee of the Whole” of the Forum working on these issues at the Forum
> level – like we did this morning.  So there are multiple opinions on the
> best way to move forward.
>
>
>
> I don’t understand your second question at all – what do you mean by
> “assessment” and “implications”?  It seems my draft language addresses your
> concern that this subcommittee could create IP and/or become implicated
> with the IPR Agreement – it can’t and it won’t.  As you know, when we have
> changed Bylaws in the past and updated our website and wiki, there have
> never been IP issues and never a need for IPR Agreement review.  Can you
> clarify with your own assessments and implications from simply allowing
> Subcommittees that don’t work on Guidelines?
>

Thank you for confirming that Entrust Datacard has not evaluated or
otherwise assessed your claim that there are no IP issues. I think it may
have been clearer to simply state that, rather than to attempt to deflect
it with a question.

As you know, and as has been discussed, one of the ways to reduce the risk
of potential IP issues is to limit the scope of broad Forum level
discussions to as minimal amount as needed to function. Indeed, an ideal
result for the Forum activities at large - to ensure there's limited risk -
is that the only Forum activities are to vote. That is, to even limit the
discussions involved as much as possible. Your path creates a significant
risk for broader, Forum level discussions and brainstorming that can easily
lead to members introducing new risks, just as members have introduced
proposals that raise concerns about the Antitrust Statement.

I can understand that some members have faith that these issues are purely
hypothetical. Another name for pure hypotheticals is risk, and risks can be
mitigated. It may be that you disagree on the degree of risk. That's
perhaps not surprising, as your reply makes it clear you've not yet
assessed that risk. Other solutions were offered that would minimize risk.
If you don't believe there's risk, there's no harm. If you do believe
there's risk, this can address. It seems like there are solutions that are
win/win for everyone, and it does not seem like this is one. But then
again, that may only be obvious once you take time to assess the risk.

>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://cabforum.org/pipermail/public/attachments/20181016/b46f6ea9/attachment-0001.html>