The converse is also true. If mailing list issues determine the validity of exclusion notices, we are unfairly endangering a member’s IP. This looks like why we added 2.3(f) – to help reduce both risks.
From: Public [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Ryan Sleevi via Public Sent: Tuesday, April 18, 2017 2:43 PM To: Peter Bowen <[email protected]> Cc: Ryan Sleevi <[email protected]>; CA/Browser Forum Public Discussion List <[email protected]> Subject: Re: [cabfpub] [EXTERNAL]Re: ]RE: Ballot 194 - Effective Date of Ballot 193 Provisions is in the VOTING period (ends April 16) 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.
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
_______________________________________________ Public mailing list [email protected] https://cabforum.org/mailman/listinfo/public
