<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 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:#0563C1;
text-decoration:underline;}
a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:#954F72;
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.EmailStyle18
{mso-style-type:personal;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
color:windowtext;}
span.EmailStyle19
{mso-style-type:personal;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
color:windowtext;}
span.EmailStyle21
{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="#0563C1" vlink="#954F72"><div class=WordSection1><p class=MsoNormal>I expressed concern about running other WGs in parallel with VWG since I participate in all of them, but I can withdraw my objection with respect to the Governance WG if that helps.<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> Public [mailto:public-bounces@cabforum.org] <b>On Behalf Of </b>Dean Coclin via Public<br><b>Sent:</b> Friday, February 2, 2018 8:38 PM<br><b>To:</b> Kirk Hall <Kirk.Hall@entrustdatacard.com>; CA/Browser Forum Public Discussion List <public@cabforum.org><br><b>Subject:</b> Re: [cabfpub] Attendance of Interested Parties at Working Group meetings<o:p></o:p></p></div></div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>The original intent of the bylaws stating that people other than members needed a chair invitation to attend F2F meetings was, as you state, to insure the meeting size didn’t get out of control lest we need an auditorium for the meetings. The WG meetings are a part of the F2F. I think it’s clear that anyone other than a member cannot attend w/o an invitation. Having said that, according to the wiki, we are at 34 signed up for the meeting, hence there is capacity for additional people (assuming there isn’t a rush of sign ups the last week). I would encourage members that are attending to insure they are on the wiki list by next week. <o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>Regarding the all day validation group meeting, I think that is fine, given that they have some critical items to discuss. Would it be possible to also hold the Governance meeting the same day? I don’t think many of the Governance people are in the Validation group and hence we can be more efficient by doing those two on Tuesday. You could then do a policy and net sec working group on Weds. Just a suggestion.<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><br>Dean<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><div><div style='border:none;border-top:solid #E1E1E1 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0in 0in 0in'><p class=MsoNormal><b>From:</b> Public [<a href="mailto:public-bounces@cabforum.org">mailto:public-bounces@cabforum.org</a>] <b>On Behalf Of </b>Kirk Hall via Public<br><b>Sent:</b> Friday, February 2, 2018 8:50 PM<br><b>To:</b> CA/Browser Forum Public Discussion List <<a href="mailto:public@cabforum.org">public@cabforum.org</a>><br><b>Subject:</b> [cabfpub] Attendance of Interested Parties at Working Group meetings<o:p></o:p></p></div></div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>I previously agreed with Wayne that an all-day VWG meeting in Herndon, VA on Tuesday, March 6 is a good idea – but we will have to push other WG meetings to later, maybe Wednesday morning. <b><u>Does anyone object to this plan?<o:p></o:p></u></b></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>On the question of attendance (in person or by phone) by Interested Parties at the special VWG meeting – I have pasted in the relevant part of Bylaw 3.2 below. If you had asked me what I thought it meant, I would have said “IPs can only come to the full Forum meetings at the invitation of the Chair, but they can come to Working Group meetings (teleconferences and face-to-face meetings) without an invitation from the Chair – it’s at their option.” <o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>That’s what I thought sub (a) meant by “becoming involved” in Working Groups, whereas I believed sub (c) only applies to participation in “Forum Teleconferences and Forum Meetings” – which I thought meant the meetings of the full Forum itself. As I recall, we didn’t want the full Forum meetings to grow to 100 people or more, perhaps with many more Interested Parties in attendance than CAs and browsers – that seemed unmanageable from a logistics standpoint. Hence the need for a little gatekeeping and specific invitations.<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>Here is the language from the Bylaws:<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:.5in;text-autospace:none'>Interested Parties may participate in Forum activities in the following ways:<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:.5in;text-autospace:none'><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:.5in;text-autospace:none'>(a) By <u>becoming involved in Working Groups</u>,<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:.5in;text-autospace:none'><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:.5in;text-autospace:none'>(b) By posting to the Public Mail List, and<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:.5in;text-autospace:none'><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:.5in;text-autospace:none'>(c) By <u>participating</u> in those portions of <u>Forum Teleconferences and Forum Meetings</u> to<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:.5in;text-autospace:none'>which they are invited by the Forum Chair relating to their areas of special expertise or<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:.5in'>the subject of their Working Group participation.<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:.5in'><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>In any case, I will happily “invite” any Interested Party who wants to be involved in the VWG meeting on March 6, if necessary. <o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>Or would it be better if we permanently adopt my interpretation above – that no invitation from the Chair is needed for Interested Parties to attend WG meetings at their own option?<o:p></o:p></p></div></div></body></html>