The best way to address future concerns would be to propose a ballot to fix them.
> On Apr 18, 2017, at 4:42 PM, Ryan Sleevi via Public <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > > On Tue, Apr 18, 2017 at 4:25 PM, Peter Bowen <[email protected] > <mailto:[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
_______________________________________________ Public mailing list [email protected] https://cabforum.org/mailman/listinfo/public
