Yup. I think the important aspect of all of this is that we have a single, unified document with any/all proposed changes at the time of the Review Notice, so there is zero ambiguity as to what is being reviewed.
On Mon, Feb 5, 2018 at 4:24 PM, Tim Hollebeek <[email protected]> wrote: > 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] > <[email protected]>] *On Behalf Of *Ryan Sleevi via Public > *Sent:* Monday, February 5, 2018 8:41 AM > *To:* Kirk Hall <[email protected]>; CA/Browser Forum Public > Discussion List <[email protected]> > *Subject:* Re: [cabfpub] Review Notices > > > > > > > > On Sun, Feb 4, 2018 at 9:00 PM, Kirk Hall via Public <[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 > <https://clicktime.symantec.com/a/1/hHFNnihCuHmsx2ziIZMvB0probT7LQyg_S8J66ioBhc=?d=Z-LIx8S6FBpmwtp1rorI_gmqo2i0YfYd6ogDM0C6D3eGoHe9tWTm4_l7BVnIvveK6U4DGVVbzJ4mlA5GGOXyrokOShO02ACOc3FpRXGpV41krcM0JuHJJF4yvVFto0n1ixVnopDMDccxeE0DjyEywdVk3uPkU4hnM30Rmavxi3s8ilpgCk3SgDfFyjkBmE-TBmI3XAeXBzUxQkALT55r9Jty9Mq02ClPcoSR9__Qq890Fz-f_gB6lGQ1y0cYD2eMmg8Q-ivswbxXX_6mb5yObU8DG3g-yt6W6mlFMQfUIG9xXCEkZmTvVjyCMDxjtVXwuWh7y1mxjeqOfST_XRCa4AydExkIBWVsip50-PV8BMI8sZk4fFg35-yyPP0%3D&u=https%3A%2F%2Fcabforum.org%2Fpipermail%2Fpublic%2F2018-February%2F012903.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 > <https://clicktime.symantec.com/a/1/_EEOqTaG5lcC7I0UzaONbMg2q1HSGRLfu9fW2wMG9vA=?d=Z-LIx8S6FBpmwtp1rorI_gmqo2i0YfYd6ogDM0C6D3eGoHe9tWTm4_l7BVnIvveK6U4DGVVbzJ4mlA5GGOXyrokOShO02ACOc3FpRXGpV41krcM0JuHJJF4yvVFto0n1ixVnopDMDccxeE0DjyEywdVk3uPkU4hnM30Rmavxi3s8ilpgCk3SgDfFyjkBmE-TBmI3XAeXBzUxQkALT55r9Jty9Mq02ClPcoSR9__Qq890Fz-f_gB6lGQ1y0cYD2eMmg8Q-ivswbxXX_6mb5yObU8DG3g-yt6W6mlFMQfUIG9xXCEkZmTvVjyCMDxjtVXwuWh7y1mxjeqOfST_XRCa4AydExkIBWVsip50-PV8BMI8sZk4fFg35-yyPP0%3D&u=https%3A%2F%2Fcabforum.org%2Fpipermail%2Fpublic%2F2017-January%2F009181.html> > was the resultant mail that contained those documents > > >
_______________________________________________ Public mailing list [email protected] https://cabforum.org/mailman/listinfo/public
