[cabfpub] IPR policy and authorial intent

[Gervase Markham]

On 08/11/16 18:28, Ryan Sleevi wrote:
> So you're asking Google to entrust its entire IP catalog with you
> personally, on the basis that you'll vote no and thus not trigger any RF
> obligations that might be incurred if we don't treat every "pre-"ballot,
> as Position 1 poses, as needing an IP review?

Hey, I'll even pinky-swear.

> I'm sure you can see why that's not exactly comforting. And should
> Opera/Qihoo/Apple vote in favor, what assurances then? 

It needs 50% + 1. And anyway, I'm sure Apple are not that keen on IPR
fishing expeditions either.

> And what about for CAs - particularly those with, as Peter pointed out,
> substantial investment structures. Should all of them rely on the good
> faith that Mozilla and Google will do the right thing?

Given that we will simultaneously be discussing and hopefully before too
long be voting on some changes to the Bylaws to solve the problem, their
trust does not have to extend for that long.

The CAB Forum is a consensus group, and seems to have managed OK thusfar
on the basis of expecting people to act reasonably, because they
generally have. If you have so little trust in your fellow Forum members
that you think that any tiny chink in the armour will be ruthlessly
exploited (and that I, Jody and Curt will gleefully go along with it)
then I'm not sure what to say to you.

Gerv