<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=utf-8"><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;}
@font-face
{font-family:Tahoma;
panose-1:2 11 6 4 3 5 4 4 2 4;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman","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
{mso-style-priority:99;
mso-margin-top-alt:auto;
margin-right:0in;
mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;
margin-left:0in;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";}
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:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";}
span.EmailStyle18
{mso-style-type:personal-reply;
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D;}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";}
@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><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>Ryan,<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>See my responses inline below.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>Thanks,<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>Ben<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><b><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif"'>From:</span></b><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif"'> public-bounces@cabforum.org [mailto:public-bounces@cabforum.org] <b>On Behalf Of </b>Ryan Sleevi<br><b>Sent:</b> Friday, January 17, 2014 5:37 PM<br><b>To:</b> Ben Wilson<br><b>Cc:</b> CABFPub<br><b>Subject:</b> Re: [cabfpub] Ballot 110 - Motion to Adopt Version 1.1 of the Bylaws<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><div><p class=MsoNormal>While I realize it's not at ballot review period, a few thoughts, given the time constraints being operated in:<o:p></o:p></p><div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal>1) I'd prefer to not change the "Purpose of the Forum" (Section 1.1) at this time.<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>BTW: That’s fine. I just didn’t like the current wording because it was written as if we’d just finished version 1.0 of the EV Guidelines.<o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal>2) Section 2.1 ("authenticate digitally signed code") is still a much greater increase of scope of the work of the members. I'd prefer if we could leave that for broader discussion. While I'm aware of the "Code Signing WG" discussions, this change in definitions has the effective quality of allowing/encouraging vendors with no/limited stake in the SSL/TLS ecosystem to vote on changes to the BRs / EVGs, and vice versa. I'm sure you can recognize at it's face, that has some degree of undesirability, and effectively changes the "CA/Browser Forum" to the "CA/ISV Forum"<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>BTW: I disagree that we’re calling it the “ISV” forum under the proposed language, but in any event I’m fine with reverting the title to “Browser Member”. I also thought that the wording was sufficient to limit potential browser concerns, but here is a start on revised language that could make it a little more clear in its restrictions:<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:.5in'><span lang=EN style='font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";color:black'>(3) <u>Browser Member</u>: The member organization:<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:.5in;text-indent:.5in'><span lang=EN style='font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";color:black'>(A) manages a root store AND <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:.5in;text-indent:.5in'><span lang=EN style='font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";color:black'>(B) is a major global provider of a hardware or software product that is: <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:1.0in;text-indent:.5in'><span lang=EN style='font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";color:black'>(i) used by the general public as a browser or computing platform, <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:1.0in;text-indent:.5in'><span lang=EN style='font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";color:black'>(ii) used to browse the Web securely or authenticate digitally signed code, AND <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:1.0in;text-indent:.5in'><span lang=EN style='font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";color:black'>(iii) able to verify the digital signatures on certificates used with the product (i.e. by processing the chain to a root certificate managed within the member’s root store). <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'> </span><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>However, if browser members still have strong opposition to the proposed wording, or this alternative above, I’d rather delete it from the proposal now than have the ballot fail, but I would hope you could see the importance of it to CAs who must deal with public key stores.<o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal>3) Why the removal of the transparency requirements in Section 5.2 for WGs? This is not at all desirable - although the modifications to Section 5.2(c) are.<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>BTW: The current language requires that EVERYTHING (even things that are not currently being done, like the creation of agendas and minutes for working groups) be posted to the public list – for some people, the amount of email traffic on the public list is already bad. Read Section 5.2(e) where “important” working group updates are addressed. Otherwise, as the responsible executive interpreting the bylaws I will have to start telling everyone that they must prepare agendas and minutes and that all emails and every single interim draft, agenda and all minutes will now need to be posted to the public list, and then we’ll just eliminate the WG lists. <o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal>4) Why are Invited Guests at the sole discretion of Chair/Vice-Chair, whereas Interested Parties go through Forum/WG consent? If anything, Invited Guests represent the greatest "threat" to members, in that they've not executed any IPR Agreement for any of the discussions they are present in.<o:p></o:p></p></div></div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-bottom:12.0pt'><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>BTW: If someone represents such a threat, we just won’t invite them—problem solved. However, we will likely run into situations where we value the input of someone, or we want their individual expertise, and for one reason or another they cannot sign the agreement in time (because of employment situation, legal advice, or whatever), then we will have to “pass” on having that person attend, and then maybe we’ll miss out on valuable information. If we invite [fill-in-the-blank] as our “invited guest”, I want to have sufficient discretion on whether to require them to sign the IPR Agreement. I would hope that attendees would we able to identify when an invited guest is trying to submarine us with some great idea (albeit contained in an undisclosed patent), and hopefully the Chair or Vice Chair, who we elect as our trusted representative will be smart enough to exercise his or her discretion appropriately. If we do change this, then we’ll need something appropriate to take its place—I’m fine if someone comes up with a simplified voting process that can also accommodate last-minute guest speaker replacements, etc.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-bottom:12.0pt'><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>Thanks again for your comments.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-bottom:12.0pt'><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>Cheers,<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-bottom:12.0pt'><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>Ben <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-bottom:12.0pt'><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-bottom:12.0pt'><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'> </span><o:p></o:p></p><div><p class=MsoNormal>On Fri, Jan 17, 2014 at 3:49 PM, Ben Wilson <<a href="mailto:ben@digicert.com" target="_blank">ben@digicert.com</a>> wrote:<o:p></o:p></p><div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'>I am seeking two endorsers.<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'> <o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'>On 17 January 2014, Ben Wilson of DigiCert made the following motion, endorsed by _____ of _______ and ______ of __________:<o:p></o:p></p><p>–Motion Begins– <o:p></o:p></p><p>Be it resolved that the CA / Browser Forum adopts the attached “CA-Browser Forum Bylaws v. 1.1- Draft for Ballot 110” as its Bylaws, effective as of 4 February 2014. <o:p></o:p></p><p>–Motion Ends– <o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'>The review period for this ballot shall commence at 2100 UTC on 20 January 2014 and will close at 2100 UTC on 27 January 2014. Unless the motion is withdrawn during the review period, the voting period will start immediately thereafter and will close at 2100 UTC on 3 February 2014. <o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'> <o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'>Votes must be cast by posting an on-list reply to this thread. A vote in favor of the ballot must indicate a clear ‘yes’ in the response. A vote against the ballot must indicate a clear ‘no’ in the response. A vote to abstain must indicate a clear ‘abstain’ in the response. Unclear responses will not be counted. The latest vote received from any representative of a voting member before the close of the voting period will be counted. <o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'> <o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'>Voting members are listed here: <a href="https://cabforum.org/members/" target="_blank">https://cabforum.org/members/</a>. In order for the motion to be adopted, two thirds or more of the votes cast by members in the CA category and more than one half of the votes cast by members in the browser category must be in favor. Quorum is currently six (6) members– at least six members must participate in the ballot, either by voting in favor, voting against, or by abstaining for the vote to be valid. <o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'> <o:p></o:p></p><p> <o:p></o:p></p><p> <o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'> <o:p></o:p></p></div></div><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-bottom:12.0pt'><br>_______________________________________________<br>Public mailing list<br><a href="mailto:Public@cabforum.org">Public@cabforum.org</a><br><a href="https://cabforum.org/mailman/listinfo/public" target="_blank">https://cabforum.org/mailman/listinfo/public</a><o:p></o:p></p></div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p></div></div></body></html>