On Thu, Apr 13, 2017 at 4:45 PM, Kirk Hall <[email protected]> wrote:
> Your analysis below is not correct. The “law” in the CA/Browser Forum is > what is approved by the members in a Ballot (all of it – in Ballot 190, > that includes both Section 1 and Section 2 – both sections have equal > validity and applicability because both were adopted by the members at the > same time.) > I'm sorry Kirk, but your analysis is not correct. What suggestion of the documents are you suggesting Section 2 modifies? How are you suggesting members audit it, if not part of the document? How are you suggesting future Ballots reform it? > In contrast, the BRs are just a compilation of those portions of prior > adopted Ballots that have long-term applicability to members. It’s a > mistake to junk up the BRs with lots of effective dates and transition rule > that will expire, and it’s unnecessary. Again, the adopted ballots of the > Forum are the “law” – all sections of the ballots equally – and not the BR > compilations themselves. I think Google’s Legal Department will agree. > Kirk, I will again emphasize to you the Baseline Requirements are not a legal document. Your legal analysis is appreciated, but not relevant. These are technical standards. They belong in the standards. > We could put ballot transition rules in BRs themselves (for Ballot 190, > move from Section 2 to Section 1 and make part of BR 3.2.2.4), but I would > rather not – then the transition rules are no longer relevant (because they > are time-based and will expire), they have to be pulled out again by a > later ballot – not useful. The transition rules will exist in Section 2 of > the adopted Ballot 190 itself, and that is sufficient. > I strongly disagree here. > Another option is to add transition rules like Ballot 190, Section 2 to > the BRs as “Notes” to BR 3.2.2.4 that are not part of BR 3.2.2.4, and that > can later be removed by the BRs compiler without a further ballot once the > transition rules are no longer relevant (because all validation data from > before the effective date of Ballot 190 will have expired). That’s what > some legislatures do, and I wouldn’t object to that. > They are either normative parts of the technical standards or they are not. If they want to have force, they are normative.
_______________________________________________ Public mailing list [email protected] https://cabforum.org/mailman/listinfo/public
