<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 15 (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.msonormal0, li.msonormal0, div.msonormal0
{mso-style-name:msonormal;
mso-margin-top-alt:auto;
margin-right:0in;
mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;
margin-left:0in;
font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;}
span.gmail-m2380213984042407381hoenzb
{mso-style-name:gmail-m_2380213984042407381hoenzb;}
span.EmailStyle19
{mso-style-type:personal-reply;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
color:windowtext;}
.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>Yes, that last part is what I’m concerned about. We said they need to be re-chartered within 6 months, but I think we dropped the ball on including a mechanism to do so.<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>-Tim<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><a name="_MailEndCompose"><o:p> </o:p></a></p><span style='mso-bookmark:_MailEndCompose'></span><div style='border:none;border-left:solid blue 1.5pt;padding:0in 0in 0in 4.0pt'><div><div style='border:none;border-top:solid #E1E1E1 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0in 0in 0in'><p class=MsoNormal><b>From:</b> Wayne Thayer [mailto:wthayer@mozilla.com] <br><b>Sent:</b> Tuesday, January 16, 2018 9:32 AM<br><b>To:</b> Tim Hollebeek <tim.hollebeek@digicert.com><br><b>Cc:</b> CA/Browser Forum Public Discussion List <public@cabforum.org><br><b>Subject:</b> Re: [cabfpub] Pre-Ballot 206 - Amendment to IPR Policy & Bylaws re Working Group Formation<o:p></o:p></p></div></div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><div><p class=MsoNormal>On Mon, Jan 15, 2018 at 7:56 AM, Tim Hollebeek <<a href="mailto:tim.hollebeek@digicert.com" target="_blank">tim.hollebeek@digicert.com</a>> wrote:<o:p></o:p></p><div><div><blockquote style='border:none;border-left:solid #CCCCCC 1.0pt;padding:0in 0in 0in 6.0pt;margin-left:4.8pt;margin-right:0in'><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-bottom:12.0pt'><br>What are we going to do about continuity of existing working groups (old terminology, not new)? Is it necessary for the Server Certificate Working Group Charter to say anything about sub-working groups (I wish we hadn't used the existing term "working group" to mean something new, it is going to be very confusing).<o:p></o:p></p></blockquote></div><p class=MsoNormal>Section 5.3.4 states that "legacy" working groups can be terminated immediately or must be rechartered within 6 months.<o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal>There is no such thing as a "sub-working group" under the new bylaws. I think this means that there is no mechanism for an existing WG like Validation or Network Security to bring a proposal to the Server Certificate WG for discussion and voting?<o:p></o:p></p></div></div></div></div></body></html>