On Tue, Apr 18, 2017 at 4:25 PM, Peter Bowen <[email protected]> wrote: > > Ryan, > > Am I understanding correctly that Google’s concern is that the ambiguity > of whether this ballot had the proper majority required could result in a > member with Essential Claims privately determining that the ballot did not > pass, that the initiation of the Review period was therefore illegitimate, > and therefore the license required by the IPR agreement does not apply? >
Yes, both for this Ballot and, in applying the definition used here as accepted precedent, for conducting future Ballots (and IP exclusions) in a manner that would directly put members at risk.
_______________________________________________ Public mailing list [email protected] https://cabforum.org/mailman/listinfo/public
