I support this, because the technology we are currently using offers the option of viewing the final document without redlining if you so choose.
-Tim From: Public [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Rich Smith via Public Sent: Monday, February 5, 2018 2:17 PM To: 'Ryan Sleevi' <[email protected]>; 'CA/Browser Forum Public Discussion List' <[email protected]>; 'Kirk Hall' <[email protected]> Subject: Re: [cabfpub] Review Notices I think Ryan and Kirk are both right. Ryan in that for effective review the change must be reviewed and understood as part of the whole, Kirk in that sending out the whole document without redlining the specific changes under review also makes review more difficult. I propose that we change such that we keep the requirement to send out the full document text, but permit (encourage?) redlining of the ballot changes to which the review notice pertains. Thoughts? Regards, Rich Smith Sr. Compliance Manager Comodo CA From: Public [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Ryan Sleevi via Public Sent: Monday, February 5, 2018 8:41 AM To: Kirk Hall <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> >; CA/Browser Forum Public Discussion List <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> > Subject: Re: [cabfpub] Review Notices On Sun, Feb 4, 2018 at 9:00 PM, Kirk Hall via Public <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> > wrote: Virginia – we have been following the steps you listed below, and have been sending out “Review Notices” since Ballot 190 that included the specific Ballot language in “track changes” mode showing how our guidelines (BRs or EVGL) were amended by each Ballot – I believed that this complied with our Bylaws shown below. Unfortunately, as Ryan pointed out a few days ago, our Review Notices can’t include just the specific Ballot language showing the changes that were made by the Ballot, but must include “a complete draft of the Draft Guideline [i.e., the entire BR or EVGL document itself] that is the subject of such notice”. Oddly enough, the IPR Agreement language doesn’t allow the “Draft Guideline” that is sent with the Review Notice to show what changes were made by the Ballot, so it’s not very helpful to Members for their IP review. Kirk, If you recall our last discussions of the IP Policy, this was an intentional decision, and one we rather thoroughly discussed in the context of multiple ballots being pursued in parallel. Given that the decision to add or remove language has IP connotations in its surrounding textual environment, the choice to provide a fully integrated copy (the one "true" version) was the only method that would allow for effective and meaningful review of the IP obligations. Given, for example, the failure to publish timely 'full' copies in a reliable way, this is perhaps proof positive of the potential challenges that would exist if your 'redline-only' IP policy were adopted. I'm not sure how Entrust is doing its IP review, but having a full document with all of the necessary obligations is how Google does its review, and a number of members expressed similar views, and a number of SDOs follow similar approaches. Regarding the proposed Ballot Range - I happened to pick Ballot 187 as the start of examples rather intentionally in my list at https://cabforum.org/pipermail/public/2018-February/012903.html Ballot 183 was the bylaws Ballot 184 did not progress Ballot 185 failed Ballot 186 did not progress Ballot 187 was the first, post 180/181/182 set of changes to modify the BRs 182 did not progress due to the formation of the PAG 180, 181, and 182 each proposed to adopt the full documents, but as you recall, used a process that the Forum had never exercised before, even under its previous IPR Policy (namely, the review being kicked off prior to voting, and without the full text or redline provided). There was sufficient ambiguity with that process which was itself problematic. https://cabforum.org/pipermail/public/2017-January/009181.html was the resultant mail that contained those documents
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
_______________________________________________ Public mailing list [email protected] https://cabforum.org/mailman/listinfo/public
