On 03/05/16 18:11, Dean Coclin wrote: > Gerv, > I think you make my point by using the word, "seems" in front of both > conclusions that you draw.
Sorry, I was being British and understating. My point is that it doesn't seem that the rules were ambiguous. > Why force participants to draw inexact conclusions > when we can easily fix this with a ballot. If you want to fix this with a ballot, without saying I support such a move, the best ballot would be the most limited - the one which rules on precisely the two disclosures which are in question. > I'm actually surprised that our IPR policy, given past and numerous > discussions about making all things CA/B Forum public, only says that the > exclusion notice has to be provided to the Chair. Am I the only one amazed by > that? Am I misinterpreting something? It is a little surprising, but the CAB Forum has been on a journey towards greater transparency, and sometimes the consequences of rare things are missed. Gerv _______________________________________________ Public mailing list [email protected] https://cabforum.org/mailman/listinfo/public
