[cabfpub] Ballot process ordering (2)

[Gervase Markham]

On 02/11/16 18:26, Ryan Sleevi wrote:
> Unfortunately, yes, this is, I believe, a correct conclusion.
> 
> Nothing in our IPR policy states that the Forum Guidelines MUST not
> include any Essential Claims; merely, that the goal is to avoid that
> situation. Much of our IPR policy is structured in a way as to set
> expectations about exclusions, but does not mandate there be none. This
> is supported by the enumerated set of options in 7.3.2 and in words like
> "seeks", "ordinarily", and "encouraged" within Section 2.

If the Forum then passed a ballot to remove the provisions in question
(because they didn't know how long the PAG would take and didn't want
people to be required to implement encumbered technology in the mean
time) then what happens to the PAG? Does it disappear in a puff of logic
because the thing it's examining is no longer in the document?

If that's so, presumably the fix is for a subsequent vote to update the
document to say "After December 31st 2038, CAs MUST...", so the
provision is left in but in abeyance.

Gerv