<html xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:w="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:m="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/2004/12/omml" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40"><head><meta http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=us-ascii"><meta name=Generator content="Microsoft Word 14 (filtered medium)"><style><!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:"Cambria Math";
panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Calibri;
panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:blue;
text-decoration:underline;}
a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:purple;
text-decoration:underline;}
p.MsoListParagraph, li.MsoListParagraph, div.MsoListParagraph
{mso-style-priority:34;
margin-top:0in;
margin-right:0in;
margin-bottom:0in;
margin-left:.5in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";}
span.EmailStyle17
{mso-style-type:personal-compose;
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:windowtext;}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;}
@page WordSection1
{size:8.5in 11.0in;
margin:1.0in 1.0in 1.0in 1.0in;}
div.WordSection1
{page:WordSection1;}
--></style><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapedefaults v:ext="edit" spidmax="1026" />
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapelayout v:ext="edit">
<o:idmap v:ext="edit" data="1" />
</o:shapelayout></xml><![endif]--></head><body lang=EN-US link=blue vlink=purple><div class=WordSection1><p class=MsoNormal>All,<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>As a follow up to an email I sent to the management list last Friday, today I had another call with Francisco Arias of ICANN. He is copied on this email. We discussed the following potential arrangements:<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>1. ICANN is finalizing its own arrangements to aggregate internal server name data for further study. This is a follow-on to the SSAC’s Advisory - Internal Name Certificates (SAC-057). ICANN asked whether the CA/B Forum preferred to conduct the data collection and report independently, but I said that among CA/B Forum members, in that regard, ICANN would be considered the more neutral third party to collect and confidentially analyze the data.<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>2. ICANN would like to contact each CA, either directly, or through various public means, such as this list, to obtain data. (I mentioned potential use of contact lists maintained by Mozilla and Microsoft or by me to you directly.) ICANN needs all data on internal names contained in certificates, and the data set would at least include the organization name and registered domain name. The group conducting the study for ICANN will likely want to contact some of the enterprises using internal names to learn more about particular use cases. If you know of any good ones in particular, it may be good to share that information with them. Expect to receive follow-up communications in this regard.<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>3. If you need ICANN to sign a mutual confidentiality agreement before sharing this data with them, they have reviewed the attached CAB/Forum-recommended mutual NDA, which includes the following additional provision: “This confidentiality and use restriction is not intended to preclude publication or presentation of aggregate benchmark data for research and analytical purposes, provided that no identifying information of individual certification authorities or web browser vendors will be associated with the benchmark data.”<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>4. ICANN representatives would like to address members of the CAB/Forum about this data request, and answer any remaining questions, during our next telephone call on Thur. May 30. They are scheduled to speak from 1605-1620, UTC. <o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>5. ICANN has preliminarily agreed to the CA/B Forum IPR Policy and IPR Agreement. They would like to sign an LOI/MOU liaison agreement with the CA/Browser Forum as soon as possible and become a non-voting interested party, similar to the agreement that CA/B Forum has with ETSI. I am using the ETSI agreement as a model to create a draft LOI/MOU with ICANN. I will circulate the agreement for member review, and ICANN has indicated that its lawyers will need to edit and approve it as well, and then it will be finalized for signature. <o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>Action on your part requires that you start planning your response to ICANN’s data request now so that the data can be delivered and aggregated for review by ICANN as soon as possible. If you want to start a one-on-one dialog with ICANN immediately on this matter, I have blind-copied Francisco. His email address is Francisco{dot}Arias{at}icann{dot}org.<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>Thanks,<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>Ben <o:p></o:p></p></div></body></html>