<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:x="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:excel" 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:Helvetica;
panose-1:2 11 6 4 2 2 2 2 2 4;}
@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:"Segoe UI Symbol";
panose-1:2 11 5 2 4 2 4 2 2 3;}
@font-face
{font-family:"Myriad Set Pro";
panose-1:0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0;}
/* 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.apple-tab-span
{mso-style-name:apple-tab-span;}
span.EmailStyle19
{mso-style-type:personal-reply;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
color:windowtext;}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;
font-size:10.0pt;}
@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>So I think the question is whether there can be formal “subcommittees” below the Server Certificate Working Group, that would correspond to the existing “Working Groups” which are subgroups of the forum as a whole now. I’ll double-check the language tomorrow, but my understanding is that in the new bylaws, Working Group means something like “Server Certificate” or “Code Signing”, not something like “Network Security (subgroup of Server Certificate)”. It’s probably ok if they can continue to exist at the top level until they get re-chartered into the right positions. We’ve done a great job on making sure there’s a continuity plan for the Server Certificate Working Group, now we just need to cross our eyes and dot our tees and make sure nothing will go wrong with the subgroups …<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>Probably a good topic for Tuesday along with Kirk’s observation that our IPR agreement has a bug with respect to Interested Parties. This entity approves of including Interested Parties as entities subject to the IPR (though it cannot commit it’s parent entity, no matter how hard it desires to do so <span style='font-family:"Segoe UI Emoji",sans-serif'>☹</span>).<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><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> Public [mailto:public-bounces@cabforum.org] <b>On Behalf Of </b>Virginia Fournier via Public<br><b>Sent:</b> Thursday, January 18, 2018 5:14 PM<br><b>To:</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><p class=MsoNormal>Tim raises a good question below, regarding whether legacy working groups and newly-approved working groups should both be called “working groups.” Maybe we should make a clear distinction between “Legacy Groups,” and “Chartered Working Groups,” or something similar. Thoughts?<o:p></o:p></p><div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal>There’s also a question about a mechanism to convert “legacy” working groups to “chartered” working groups within 6 months. The process for converting a “legacy” group into a “chartered” group is specified in Section 5.3.4 (see below) of the new Bylaws. The legacy group would need to go through the same process as any other group would to get a charter approved. So the process is already covered.<o:p></o:p></p></div><div><div><div><div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto'><b><span style='font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:#006D8F'>5.3.4 Legacy Working Groups</span></b><span style='font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Helvetica",sans-serif'><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto'><span style='font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:#006D8F'>Any legacy Working Groups in existence when this Bylaws v.1.8 is approved by the Forum shall have the option of immediately terminating or continuing in effect without change for 6 months following such approval. For a legacy a Working Group to continue beyond such 6 months, it must have a charter approved as described in Section 5.3.1 above, as if it was a new Working Group.</span><span style='font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Helvetica",sans-serif'><o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Helvetica",sans-serif;color:black'><br><br><o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.5pt;font-family:"Helvetica",sans-serif;color:black'>Best regards,<o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.5pt;font-family:"Helvetica",sans-serif;color:black'><o:p> </o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.5pt;font-family:"Helvetica",sans-serif;color:black'>Virginia Fournier<o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.5pt;font-family:"Helvetica",sans-serif;color:black'>Senior Standards Counsel<o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.5pt;font-family:"Myriad Set Pro",serif;color:#5E5E5E'></span><span style='font-size:10.5pt;font-family:"Helvetica",sans-serif;color:black'> Apple Inc.<o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.5pt;font-family:"Segoe UI Symbol",sans-serif;color:black'>☏</span><span style='font-size:10.5pt;font-family:"Helvetica",sans-serif;color:black'> 669-227-9595<o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.5pt;font-family:"Segoe UI Symbol",sans-serif;color:black'>✉︎</span><span style='font-size:10.5pt;font-family:"Helvetica",sans-serif;color:black'> <a href="mailto:vmf@apple.com">vmf@apple.com</a></span><span style='font-size:10.5pt;font-family:"Helvetica",sans-serif;color:#4787FF'><o:p></o:p></span></p></div></div><div><div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Helvetica",sans-serif;color:black'><o:p> </o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Helvetica",sans-serif;color:black'><o:p> </o:p></span></p></div></div></div></div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p></div></div><div><div><div><p class=MsoNormal><br>----------------------------------------------------------------------<br><br>Message: 1<br>Date: Tue, 16 Jan 2018 09:31:59 -0700<br>From: Wayne Thayer <<a href="mailto:wthayer@mozilla.com">wthayer@mozilla.com</a>><br>To: Tim Hollebeek <<a href="mailto:tim.hollebeek@digicert.com">tim.hollebeek@digicert.com</a>><br>Cc: CA/Browser Forum Public Discussion List <<a href="mailto:public@cabforum.org">public@cabforum.org</a>><br>Subject: Re: [cabfpub] Pre-Ballot 206 - Amendment to IPR Policy &<br><span class=apple-tab-span> </span>Bylaws re Working Group Formation<br>Message-ID:<br><span class=apple-tab-span> </span><<a href="mailto:CAJE6Z6cav=sARZkyvSvp_+=BWT_ffe2N8aMRybTBibdL9iMtaA@mail.gmail.com">CAJE6Z6cav=sARZkyvSvp_+=BWT_ffe2N8aMRybTBibdL9iMtaA@mail.gmail.com</a>><br>Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"<br><br>On Mon, Jan 15, 2018 at 7:56 AM, Tim Hollebeek <<a href="mailto:tim.hollebeek@digicert.com">tim.hollebeek@digicert.com</a>><br>wrote:<br><br><br><o:p></o:p></p><blockquote style='margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt'><p class=MsoNormal><br>What are we going to do about continuity of existing working groups (old<br>terminology, not new)? Is it necessary for the Server Certificate Working<br>Group Charter to say anything about sub-working groups (I wish we hadn't<br>used the existing term "working group" to mean something new, it is going<br>to be very confusing).<br><br>Section 5.3.4 states that "legacy" working groups can be terminated<o:p></o:p></p></blockquote><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-bottom:12.0pt'>immediately or must be rechartered within 6 months.<br><br>There is no such thing as a "sub-working group" under the new bylaws. I<br>think this means that there is no mechanism for an existing WG like<br>Validation or Network Security to bring a proposal to the Server<br>Certificate WG for discussion and voting?<br>-------------- next part --------------<br>An HTML attachment was scrubbed...<br>URL: <<a href="http://cabforum.org/pipermail/public/attachments/20180116/a613818d/attachment-0001.html">http://cabforum.org/pipermail/public/attachments/20180116/a613818d/attachment-0001.html</a>><br><br>------------------------------<br><br>Message: 2<br>Date: Tue, 16 Jan 2018 16:36:14 +0000<br>From: Tim Hollebeek <<a href="mailto:tim.hollebeek@digicert.com">tim.hollebeek@digicert.com</a>><br>To: Wayne Thayer <<a href="mailto:wthayer@mozilla.com">wthayer@mozilla.com</a>><br>Cc: CA/Browser Forum Public Discussion List <<a href="mailto:public@cabforum.org">public@cabforum.org</a>><br>Subject: Re: [cabfpub] Pre-Ballot 206 - Amendment to IPR Policy &<br><span class=apple-tab-span> </span>Bylaws re Working Group Formation<br>Message-ID:<br><span class=apple-tab-span> </span><<a href="mailto:DM5PR14MB128949AC267566F7DBC0EFC683EA0@DM5PR14MB1289.namprd14.prod.outlook.com">DM5PR14MB128949AC267566F7DBC0EFC683EA0@DM5PR14MB1289.namprd14.prod.outlook.com</a>><br><span class=apple-tab-span> </span><br>Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"<br><br>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.<br><br><br><br>-Tim<br><br><br><o:p></o:p></p></div></div></div></div></div></div></body></html>