> On Apr 18, 2017, at 12:12 PM, Ryan Sleevi via Public <public@cabforum.org>
> wrote:
>
> On Tue, Apr 18, 2017 at 2:48 PM, Geoff Keating <geo...@apple.com
> <mailto:geo...@apple.com>> wrote:
> I’m really not sure what the issue is here. Microsoft sent their vote to the
> public mailing list before the deadline. The message was posted on the
> public mailing list (by Kirk) in a reasonably timely manner. I don’t see any
> conflict with the bylaws.
>
> I also see no point in litigating this. If this ballot fails solely for this
> reason it will surely be submitted again and will pass. In fact I would
> lobby for Apple to support the re-ballot instead of abstaining, purely to
> discourage rules lawyering.
>
> I think if the result is that a subsequent Ballot was held, then the concerns
> would be meaningfully addressed and the result would be unambiguous and
> uncontested. Further, there would be no uncertainty that our Bylaws, and the
> protections afforded by them, are meaningful, and the ability of the Forum to
> self-regulate is not questioned. Surely that's a clear and desirable goal,
> regardless of the position of rules lawyering.
>
> I would suggest that had this not been a 'tiebreaker' vote, the concern about
> accepting Microsoft's vote would not be an issue. [...]
>
> The issue we're presented now is whether we value our Bylaws - and the
> protections afforded by them, for all members - over the results. A position
> that suggests it's acceptable to accept this vote, because a revote "will
> pass", suggests that the results are more important. And in valuing such
> results, we undermine the protections, and thus undermine the ability of
> members to participate and of the Forum to self-regulate.
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?
Thanks,
Peter
_______________________________________________
Public mailing list
Public@cabforum.org
https://cabforum.org/mailman/listinfo/public
