<div dir="ltr">Peter,<div><br></div><div>Thank you for making an earnest effort to engage in discussing the potential reasons for anonymity. I do hope that Kirk is able to clarify and share whether your proposal aligns with his reasons.</div><div><br></div><div>Kirk,</div><div><br></div><div>As your proposal for anonymity was made prior to my comments, I'm certain you had reasons for sharing. I hope that you can confirm whether Peter's reasons are reflective of your reasons, or, if not, please share what your intended goal for anonymity was.</div></div><div class="gmail_extra"><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Mon, Jun 12, 2017 at 1:10 AM, Peter Bowen <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:pzb@amzn.com" target="_blank">pzb@amzn.com</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div style="word-wrap:break-word"><div>Ryan,</div><div><br></div><div>I’ll take a stab at an answer, as I made a very similar proposal for the last F2F. There are a number of reasons why people may not want to publish issues with the current requirements with their names attached. Chief among these is repetitional concern — for some members, suggesting that the standard has issues or that their organization has seen issues may not be culturally acceptable.</div><div><br></div><div>On the other hand, it is not clear what “problems” you reference. I’m guessing this goes to the IPR agreement and the need for every contribution by a member to be tracked and associated with the member. This is needed to assure our standards don’t end up like some other standards where it is necessary to license IP in order to implement the standard. Is this why you see the anonymous proposal as problematic?</div><div><br></div><div>Thanks,</div><div>Peter</div><br><div><blockquote type="cite"><div><div class="h5"><div>On Jun 11, 2017, at 8:06 PM, Ryan Sleevi via Public <<a href="mailto:public@cabforum.org" target="_blank">public@cabforum.org</a>> wrote:</div><br class="m_-1414721323944523638Apple-interchange-newline"></div></div><div><div><div class="h5"><div dir="ltr">Kirk,<div><br></div><div>This is not helpful or productive. Should I take your response to mean that you do not wish to engage with or answer the question, which was hopefully both simple and clear, which was simply trying to understand why, given the problems, you would propose anonymity? Understanding your reasoning, and the things you considered in proposing it, is entirely based in good faith, and I hope you can extend the same courtesies.</div></div><div class="gmail_extra"><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Sun, Jun 11, 2017 at 5:32 PM, Kirk Hall <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:Kirk.Hall@entrustdatacard.com" target="_blank">Kirk.Hall@entrustdatacard.com</a><wbr>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div lang="EN-US" link="blue" vlink="purple">
<div class="m_-1414721323944523638m_-102214101969638487WordSection1"><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1f497d">Actually, Ryan – you go first. Why did you object?<u></u><u></u></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1f497d"><u></u> <u></u></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">From:</span></b><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif"> Ryan Sleevi [mailto:<a href="mailto:sleevi@google.com" target="_blank">sleevi@google.com</a>]
<br>
<b>Sent:</b> Sunday, June 11, 2017 12:37 PM<br>
<b>To:</b> Kirk Hall <<a href="mailto:Kirk.Hall@entrustdatacard.com" target="_blank">Kirk.Hall@entrustdatacard.com</a><wbr>><br>
<b>Cc:</b> CA/Browser Forum Public Discussion List <<a href="mailto:public@cabforum.org" target="_blank">public@cabforum.org</a>><br>
<b>Subject:</b> Re: [EXTERNAL]Re: [cabfpub] Send us you list of current problems with the Network Security Guidelines<u></u><u></u></span></p><div><div class="m_-1414721323944523638h5"><p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p>
<div><p class="MsoNormal">Hi Kirk,<u></u><u></u></p>
<div><p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p>
</div>
<div><p class="MsoNormal">While I realize your reply was seeking for more clarification, I think it's important to note that you didn't actually engage with the question I asked. I'm hoping to ask again - could you go into detail why this would be beneficial for
discussion?<u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
<div><p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p>
</div>
<div><p class="MsoNormal">Thanks<u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
</div>
<div><p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p>
<div><p class="MsoNormal">On Sat, Jun 10, 2017 at 12:54 AM, Kirk Hall <<a href="mailto:Kirk.Hall@entrustdatacard.com" target="_blank">Kirk.Hall@entrustdatacard.com</a><wbr>> wrote:<u></u><u></u></p>
<blockquote style="border:none;border-left:solid #cccccc 1.0pt;padding:0in 0in 0in 6.0pt;margin-left:4.8pt;margin-right:0in">
<div>
<div><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1f497d">Why do you think it’s detrimental to discussion – I don’t follow your logic?</span><u></u><u></u></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1f497d"> </span><u></u><u></u></p><p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">From:</span></b><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif"> Ryan Sleevi [mailto:<a href="mailto:sleevi@google.com" target="_blank">sleevi@google.com</a>]
<br>
<b>Sent:</b> Friday, June 9, 2017 4:49 PM<br>
<b>To:</b> CA/Browser Forum Public Discussion List <<a href="mailto:public@cabforum.org" target="_blank">public@cabforum.org</a>><br>
<b>Cc:</b> Kirk Hall <<a href="mailto:Kirk.Hall@entrustdatacard.com" target="_blank">Kirk.Hall@entrustdatacard.com</a><wbr>><br>
<b>Subject:</b> [EXTERNAL]Re: [cabfpub] Send us you list of current problems with the Network Security Guidelines</span><u></u><u></u></p>
<div>
<div><p class="MsoNormal"> <u></u><u></u></p>
<div><p class="MsoNormal"> <u></u><u></u></p>
<div><p class="MsoNormal"> <u></u><u></u></p>
<div><p class="MsoNormal">On Fri, Jun 9, 2017 at 4:34 PM, Kirk Hall via Public <<a href="mailto:public@cabforum.org" target="_blank">public@cabforum.org</a>> wrote:<u></u><u></u></p>
<blockquote style="border:none;border-left:solid #cccccc 1.0pt;padding:0in 0in 0in 6.0pt;margin-left:4.8pt;margin-top:5.0pt;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<div>
<div><p class="MsoNormal">Bruce and I will combine all suggestions received and report
<i><u>anonymously</u></i> to the whole group for a discussion in Berlin. <u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<div><p class="MsoNormal"> <u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
<div><p class="MsoNormal">That seems pretty detrimental to discussion - that is, the anonymous aspect - unless we're talking about specific audit failures.<u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
<div><p class="MsoNormal"> <u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
<div><p class="MsoNormal">Could you go into detail why this would be beneficial for discussion? <u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div><p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p>
</div>
</div></div></div>
</div>
</blockquote></div><br></div></div></div><span class="">
______________________________<wbr>_________________<br>Public mailing list<br><a href="mailto:Public@cabforum.org" target="_blank">Public@cabforum.org</a><br><a href="https://cabforum.org/mailman/listinfo/public" target="_blank">https://cabforum.org/mailman/<wbr>listinfo/public</a><br></span></div></blockquote></div><br></div></blockquote></div><br></div>