<div dir="ltr">Virginia,<div><br></div><div>I don't think there's been any question as to what the required content of the Ballots are - it is the question about Review Notices, which is covered by the IP Policy.</div><div><br></div><div>More concretely, until this week, there was no copy available to members, publicly or privately, as to what the Final Guideline(s) were or are at the time of the Ballot. How does one effectively complete an IP Review for potential implications under such a scenario?</div><div><br></div><div>That is, you stated "The ballot would not need to include the entire set of Guidelines, because people can look on the Forum website and see the rest of the document that would remain unchanged." - except until this week, that was not possible to do.</div></div><div class="gmail_extra"><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Tue, Feb 6, 2018 at 9:50 PM, Virginia Fournier via Public <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:public@cabforum.org" target="_blank">public@cabforum.org</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;line-break:after-white-space"><br><div>
<div style="letter-spacing:normal;text-align:start;text-indent:0px;text-transform:none;white-space:normal;word-spacing:0px;word-wrap:break-word;line-break:after-white-space"><div style="letter-spacing:normal;text-align:start;text-indent:0px;text-transform:none;white-space:normal;word-spacing:0px;word-wrap:break-word;line-break:after-white-space"><div style="font-size:12px;font-style:normal;font-variant-ligatures:normal;font-variant-caps:normal;font-variant-numeric:normal;font-variant-alternates:normal;font-variant-east-asian:normal;font-weight:normal;letter-spacing:normal;text-align:start;text-indent:0px;text-transform:none;white-space:normal;word-spacing:0px;font-family:Helvetica;line-height:normal"><div style="color:rgb(0,0,0);margin:0px;font-size:14px;line-height:normal">Hi all,</div><div style="color:rgb(0,0,0);margin:0px;font-size:14px;line-height:normal"><br></div><div style="color:rgb(0,0,0);margin:0px;font-size:14px;line-height:normal">It would be helpful if we all look at the actual text of the Bylaws before opining on what is/is not required and what should/should not be added to the Bylaws.</div><div style="color:rgb(0,0,0);margin:0px;font-size:14px;line-height:normal"><br></div><div style="color:rgb(0,0,0);margin:0px;font-size:14px;line-height:normal">This is the current section of the Bylaws addressing redlining:</div><div style="margin:0px;font-size:14px;line-height:normal">
<div class="m_7978457670851662591page" title="Page 5">
<div class="m_7978457670851662591layoutArea">
<div class="m_7978457670851662591column"><p><span style="font-size:11pt;font-family:ArialMT"><font color="#0433ff">(a) A Draft Guideline Ballot will clearly indicate whether it is proposing a Final Guideline or a
Final Maintenance Guideline. If the Draft Guideline Ballot is proposing a Final Guideline, such
ballot will include the <u>full text</u> of the Draft Guideline intended to become a <u>Final Guideline</u>. If the
Draft Guideline Ballot is proposing a <u>Final Maintenance Guideline</u>, such ballot will include a
<u>redline or comparison showing the set of changes</u> from the Final Guideline section(s) intended
to become a Final Maintenance Guideline, and <u>need not include a copy of the full set of
guidelines</u>. Such redline or comparison shall be made against the Final Guideline section(s) as
they exist at the time a ballot is proposed, and need not take into consideration other ballots that
may be proposed subsequently, except as provided in Section 2.4(j) below. </font></span></p>
</div>
</div>
</div></div></div><div style="color:rgb(0,0,0);font-style:normal;font-variant-ligatures:normal;font-variant-caps:normal;font-variant-numeric:normal;font-variant-alternates:normal;font-variant-east-asian:normal;font-weight:normal;letter-spacing:normal;text-align:start;text-indent:0px;text-transform:none;white-space:normal;word-spacing:0px;font-family:Helvetica;line-height:normal"><span>The IPR Policy defines Final Guideline and Final Maintenance Guideline in Section 8.3.</span></div><div style="color:rgb(0,0,0);font-style:normal;font-variant-ligatures:normal;font-variant-caps:normal;font-variant-numeric:normal;font-variant-alternates:normal;font-variant-east-asian:normal;font-weight:normal;letter-spacing:normal;text-align:start;text-indent:0px;text-transform:none;white-space:normal;word-spacing:0px;font-family:Helvetica;line-height:normal"><span><br></span></div><div style="color:rgb(0,0,0);font-style:normal;font-variant-ligatures:normal;font-variant-caps:normal;font-variant-numeric:normal;font-variant-alternates:normal;font-variant-east-asian:normal;font-weight:normal;letter-spacing:normal;text-align:start;text-indent:0px;text-transform:none;white-space:normal;word-spacing:0px;font-family:Helvetica;line-height:normal"><span>Please note that redlining is required when modifying/amending existing Guidelines (such a modification or amendment is called a “Maintenance Guideline” in the IPR Policy). This is, for example, changing the language of one of the validation methods in Section 3.2, or adding a validation method to that section. In in this case you would <u>only</u> send a redlined section of Section 3.2 or whichever section(s) of the Bylaws you modified. The ballot would <u>not need</u> to include the entire set of Guidelines, because people can look on the Forum website and see the rest of the document that would remain unchanged. What benefit would there be from requiring attaching the full document to all ballots? </span></div><div style="color:rgb(0,0,0);font-style:normal;font-variant-ligatures:normal;font-variant-caps:normal;font-variant-numeric:normal;font-variant-alternates:normal;font-variant-east-asian:normal;font-weight:normal;letter-spacing:normal;text-align:start;text-indent:0px;text-transform:none;white-space:normal;word-spacing:0px;font-family:Helvetica;line-height:normal"><span><br></span></div><div style="color:rgb(0,0,0);font-style:normal;font-variant-ligatures:normal;font-variant-caps:normal;font-variant-numeric:normal;font-variant-alternates:normal;font-variant-east-asian:normal;font-weight:normal;letter-spacing:normal;text-align:start;text-indent:0px;text-transform:none;white-space:normal;word-spacing:0px;font-family:Helvetica;line-height:normal"><span>In the event someone is proposing a new “Final Guideline” - meaning an entirely new set of guidelines (which will likely happen with the new Working Groups), and not an amendment to the existing guidelines, then you would need to attach a copy of the entire guidelines document, because it would all be new.</span></div><div style="color:rgb(0,0,0);font-style:normal;font-variant-ligatures:normal;font-variant-caps:normal;font-variant-numeric:normal;font-variant-alternates:normal;font-variant-east-asian:normal;font-weight:normal;letter-spacing:normal;text-align:start;text-indent:0px;text-transform:none;white-space:normal;word-spacing:0px;font-family:Helvetica;line-height:normal"><span><br></span></div><div style="color:rgb(0,0,0);font-style:normal;font-variant-ligatures:normal;font-variant-caps:normal;font-variant-numeric:normal;font-variant-alternates:normal;font-variant-east-asian:normal;font-weight:normal;letter-spacing:normal;text-align:start;text-indent:0px;text-transform:none;white-space:normal;word-spacing:0px;font-family:Helvetica;line-height:normal"><span><br></span></div><div style="color:rgb(0,0,0);font-style:normal;font-variant-ligatures:normal;font-variant-caps:normal;font-variant-numeric:normal;font-variant-alternates:normal;font-variant-east-asian:normal;font-weight:normal;letter-spacing:normal;text-align:start;text-indent:0px;text-transform:none;white-space:normal;word-spacing:0px;font-family:Helvetica;line-height:normal"><span><br></span></div><div style="color:rgb(0,0,0);font-style:normal;font-variant-ligatures:normal;font-variant-caps:normal;font-variant-numeric:normal;font-variant-alternates:normal;font-variant-east-asian:normal;font-weight:normal;letter-spacing:normal;text-align:start;text-indent:0px;text-transform:none;white-space:normal;word-spacing:0px;font-family:Helvetica;line-height:normal"><br></div><div style="color:rgb(0,0,0);font-size:12px;font-style:normal;font-variant-ligatures:normal;font-variant-caps:normal;font-variant-numeric:normal;font-variant-alternates:normal;font-variant-east-asian:normal;font-weight:normal;letter-spacing:normal;text-align:start;text-indent:0px;text-transform:none;white-space:normal;word-spacing:0px;font-family:Helvetica;line-height:normal"><div style="margin:0px;font-size:14px;line-height:normal"><br></div><div style="margin:0px;font-size:14px;line-height:normal">Best regards,</div><div style="margin:0px;font-size:14px;line-height:normal;min-height:17px"><br></div><div style="margin:0px;font-size:14px;line-height:normal">Virginia Fournier</div><div style="margin:0px;font-size:14px;line-height:normal">Senior Standards Counsel</div><div style="margin:0px;font-size:14px;line-height:normal"><span style="line-height:normal;font-family:'Myriad Set Pro';color:rgb(94,94,94)"></span> Apple Inc.</div><div style="margin:0px;font-size:14px;line-height:normal">☏ <a href="tel:(669)%20227-9595" value="+16692279595" target="_blank">669-227-9595</a></div><div style="margin:0px;font-size:14px;line-height:normal;color:rgb(71,135,255)"><span style="color:rgb(0,0,0)">✉︎ <a href="mailto:vmf@apple.com" target="_blank"><span>vmf@apple.com</span></a></span></div></div><div style="color:rgb(0,0,0);font-size:12px;font-style:normal;font-variant-ligatures:normal;font-variant-caps:normal;font-variant-numeric:normal;font-variant-alternates:normal;font-variant-east-asian:normal;font-weight:normal;letter-spacing:normal;text-align:start;text-indent:0px;text-transform:none;white-space:normal;word-spacing:0px;font-family:Helvetica;line-height:normal"><div><div><br></div><div><br></div></div></div></div><br class="m_7978457670851662591Apple-interchange-newline"></div><br class="m_7978457670851662591Apple-interchange-newline"><br class="m_7978457670851662591Apple-interchange-newline">
</div>
<div><br><div>On Feb 5, 2018, at 1:25 PM, <a href="mailto:public-request@cabforum.org" target="_blank">public-request@cabforum.org</a> wrote:</div><br class="m_7978457670851662591Apple-interchange-newline"><div><div>Send Public mailing list submissions to<br><span class="m_7978457670851662591Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre-wrap"> </span><a href="mailto:public@cabforum.org" target="_blank">public@cabforum.org</a><br><br>To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit<br><span class="m_7978457670851662591Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre-wrap"> </span><a href="https://cabforum.org/mailman/listinfo/public" target="_blank">https://cabforum.org/mailman/<wbr>listinfo/public</a><br>or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to<br><span class="m_7978457670851662591Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre-wrap"> </span><a href="mailto:public-request@cabforum.org" target="_blank">public-request@cabforum.org</a><br><br>You can reach the person managing the list at<br><span class="m_7978457670851662591Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre-wrap"> </span><a href="mailto:public-owner@cabforum.org" target="_blank">public-owner@cabforum.org</a><br><br>When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific<br>than "Re: Contents of Public digest..."<br><br><br>Today's Topics:<br><br> 1. Re: Review Notices (Rich Smith)<br> 2. Re: Review Notices (Tim Hollebeek)<br><br><br>------------------------------<wbr>------------------------------<wbr>----------<br><br>Message: 1<br>Date: Mon, 5 Feb 2018 15:16:59 -0600<br>From: "Rich Smith" <<a href="mailto:rich@comodoca.com" target="_blank">rich@comodoca.com</a>><br>To: "'Ryan Sleevi'" <<a href="mailto:sleevi@google.com" target="_blank">sleevi@google.com</a>>, "'CA/Browser Forum Public<br><span class="m_7978457670851662591Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre-wrap"> </span>Discussion List'" <<a href="mailto:public@cabforum.org" target="_blank">public@cabforum.org</a>>, "'Kirk Hall'"<br><span class="m_7978457670851662591Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre-wrap"> </span><<a href="mailto:Kirk.Hall@entrustdatacard.com" target="_blank">Kirk.Hall@entrustdatacard.com</a><wbr>><br>Subject: Re: [cabfpub] Review Notices<br>Message-ID: <074d01d39ec6$aa71e320$<wbr>ff55a960$@<a href="http://comodoca.com" target="_blank">comodoca.com</a>><br>Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"<br><br>I think Ryan and Kirk are both right. Ryan in that for effective review the change must be reviewed and understood as part of the whole, Kirk in that sending out the whole document without redlining the specific changes under review also makes review more difficult. I propose that we change such that we keep the requirement to send out the full document text, but permit (encourage?) redlining of the ballot changes to which the review notice pertains. Thoughts?<br><br><br><br>Regards,<br><br>Rich Smith<br><br>Sr. Compliance Manager<br><br>Comodo CA<br><br><br><br>From: Public [mailto:<a href="mailto:public-bounces@cabforum.org" target="_blank">public-bounces@<wbr>cabforum.org</a>] On Behalf Of Ryan Sleevi via Public<br>Sent: Monday, February 5, 2018 8:41 AM<br>To: Kirk Hall <<a href="mailto:Kirk.Hall@entrustdatacard.com" target="_blank">Kirk.Hall@entrustdatacard.com</a><wbr>>; CA/Browser Forum Public Discussion List <<a href="mailto:public@cabforum.org" target="_blank">public@cabforum.org</a>><br>Subject: Re: [cabfpub] Review Notices<br><br><br><br><br><br><br><br>On Sun, Feb 4, 2018 at 9:00 PM, Kirk Hall via Public <<a href="mailto:public@cabforum.org" target="_blank">public@cabforum.org</a> <mailto:<a href="mailto:public@cabforum.org" target="_blank">public@cabforum.org</a>> > wrote:<br><br>Virginia ? we have been following the steps you listed below, and have been sending out ?Review Notices? since Ballot 190 that included the specific Ballot language in ?track changes? mode showing how our guidelines (BRs or EVGL) were amended by each Ballot ? I believed that this complied with our Bylaws shown below. <br><br><br><br>Unfortunately, as Ryan pointed out a few days ago, our Review Notices can?t include just the specific Ballot language showing the changes that were made by the Ballot, but must include ?a complete draft of the Draft Guideline [i.e., the entire BR or EVGL document itself] that is the subject of such notice?. Oddly enough, the IPR Agreement language doesn?t allow the ?Draft Guideline? that is sent with the Review Notice to show what changes were made by the Ballot, so it?s not very helpful to Members for their IP review. <br><br><br><br>Kirk,<br><br><br><br>If you recall our last discussions of the IP Policy, this was an intentional decision, and one we rather thoroughly discussed in the context of multiple ballots being pursued in parallel.<br><br><br><br>Given that the decision to add or remove language has IP connotations in its surrounding textual environment, the choice to provide a fully integrated copy (the one "true" version) was the only method that would allow for effective and meaningful review of the IP obligations. Given, for example, the failure to publish timely 'full' copies in a reliable way, this is perhaps proof positive of the potential challenges that would exist if your 'redline-only' IP policy were adopted.<br><br><br><br>I'm not sure how Entrust is doing its IP review, but having a full document with all of the necessary obligations is how Google does its review, and a number of members expressed similar views, and a number of SDOs follow similar approaches.<br><br><br><br>Regarding the proposed Ballot Range - I happened to pick Ballot 187 as the start of examples rather intentionally in my list at <a href="https://cabforum.org/pipermail/public/2018-February/012903.html" target="_blank">https://cabforum.org/<wbr>pipermail/public/2018-<wbr>February/012903.html</a><br><br><br><br>Ballot 183 was the bylaws<br><br>Ballot 184 did not progress<br><br>Ballot 185 failed<br><br>Ballot 186 did not progress<br><br>Ballot 187 was the first, post 180/181/182 set of changes to modify the BRs<br><br><br><br>182 did not progress due to the formation of the PAG<br><br>180, 181, and 182 each proposed to adopt the full documents, but as you recall, used a process that the Forum had never exercised before, even under its previous IPR Policy (namely, the review being kicked off prior to voting, and without the full text or redline provided). There was sufficient ambiguity with that process which was itself problematic.<br><br><br><br><a href="https://cabforum.org/pipermail/public/2017-January/009181.html" target="_blank">https://cabforum.org/<wbr>pipermail/public/2017-January/<wbr>009181.html</a> was the resultant mail that contained those documents<br><br><br><br>-------------- next part --------------<br>An HTML attachment was scrubbed...<br>URL: <<a href="http://cabforum.org/pipermail/public/attachments/20180205/4181e6fd/attachment-0001.html" target="_blank">http://cabforum.org/<wbr>pipermail/public/attachments/<wbr>20180205/4181e6fd/attachment-<wbr>0001.html</a>><br><br>------------------------------<br><br>Message: 2<br>Date: Mon, 5 Feb 2018 21:24:55 +0000<br>From: Tim Hollebeek <<a href="mailto:tim.hollebeek@digicert.com" target="_blank">tim.hollebeek@digicert.com</a>><br>To: Rich Smith <<a href="mailto:rich@comodoca.com" target="_blank">rich@comodoca.com</a>>, CA/Browser Forum Public Discussion<br><span class="m_7978457670851662591Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre-wrap"> </span>List <<a href="mailto:public@cabforum.org" target="_blank">public@cabforum.org</a>>, 'Ryan Sleevi' <<a href="mailto:sleevi@google.com" target="_blank">sleevi@google.com</a>>, 'Kirk<br><span class="m_7978457670851662591Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre-wrap"> </span>Hall' <<a href="mailto:Kirk.Hall@entrustdatacard.com" target="_blank">Kirk.Hall@entrustdatacard.com</a><wbr>><br>Subject: Re: [cabfpub] Review Notices<br>Message-ID:<br><span class="m_7978457670851662591Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre-wrap"> </span><<a href="mailto:MWHPR14MB1376C2F6C20B4E00507261D483FE0@MWHPR14MB1376.namprd14.prod.outlook.com" target="_blank">MWHPR14MB1376C2F6C20B4E005072<wbr>61D483FE0@MWHPR14MB1376.<wbr>namprd14.prod.outlook.com</a>><br><span class="m_7978457670851662591Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre-wrap"> </span><br>Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"<br><br>I support this, because the technology we are currently using offers the option of viewing the final document without redlining if you so choose.<br><br><br><br>-Tim<br><br><br><br>From: Public [mailto:<a href="mailto:public-bounces@cabforum.org" target="_blank">public-bounces@<wbr>cabforum.org</a>] On Behalf Of Rich Smith via Public<br>Sent: Monday, February 5, 2018 2:17 PM<br>To: 'Ryan Sleevi' <<a href="mailto:sleevi@google.com" target="_blank">sleevi@google.com</a>>; 'CA/Browser Forum Public Discussion List' <<a href="mailto:public@cabforum.org" target="_blank">public@cabforum.org</a>>; 'Kirk Hall' <<a href="mailto:Kirk.Hall@entrustdatacard.com" target="_blank">Kirk.Hall@entrustdatacard.com</a><wbr>><br>Subject: Re: [cabfpub] Review Notices<br><br><br><br>I think Ryan and Kirk are both right. Ryan in that for effective review the change must be reviewed and understood as part of the whole, Kirk in that sending out the whole document without redlining the specific changes under review also makes review more difficult. I propose that we change such that we keep the requirement to send out the full document text, but permit (encourage?) redlining of the ballot changes to which the review notice pertains. Thoughts?<br><br><br><br>Regards,<br><br>Rich Smith<br><br>Sr. Compliance Manager<br><br>Comodo CA<br><br><br><br>From: Public [mailto:<a href="mailto:public-bounces@cabforum.org" target="_blank">public-bounces@<wbr>cabforum.org</a>] On Behalf Of Ryan Sleevi via Public<br>Sent: Monday, February 5, 2018 8:41 AM<br>To: Kirk Hall <<a href="mailto:Kirk.Hall@entrustdatacard.com" target="_blank">Kirk.Hall@entrustdatacard.com</a> <mailto:<a href="mailto:Kirk.Hall@entrustdatacard.com" target="_blank">Kirk.Hall@<wbr>entrustdatacard.com</a>> >; CA/Browser Forum Public Discussion List <<a href="mailto:public@cabforum.org" target="_blank">public@cabforum.org</a> <mailto:<a href="mailto:public@cabforum.org" target="_blank">public@cabforum.org</a>> ><br>Subject: Re: [cabfpub] Review Notices<br><br><br><br><br><br><br><br>On Sun, Feb 4, 2018 at 9:00 PM, Kirk Hall via Public <<a href="mailto:public@cabforum.org" target="_blank">public@cabforum.org</a> <mailto:<a href="mailto:public@cabforum.org" target="_blank">public@cabforum.org</a>> > wrote:<br><br>Virginia ? we have been following the steps you listed below, and have been sending out ?Review Notices? since Ballot 190 that included the specific Ballot language in ?track changes? mode showing how our guidelines (BRs or EVGL) were amended by each Ballot ? I believed that this complied with our Bylaws shown below. <br><br><br><br>Unfortunately, as Ryan pointed out a few days ago, our Review Notices can?t include just the specific Ballot language showing the changes that were made by the Ballot, but must include ?a complete draft of the Draft Guideline [i.e., the entire BR or EVGL document itself] that is the subject of such notice?. Oddly enough, the IPR Agreement language doesn?t allow the ?Draft Guideline? that is sent with the Review Notice to show what changes were made by the Ballot, so it?s not very helpful to Members for their IP review. <br><br><br><br>Kirk,<br><br><br><br>If you recall our last discussions of the IP Policy, this was an intentional decision, and one we rather thoroughly discussed in the context of multiple ballots being pursued in parallel.<br><br><br><br>Given that the decision to add or remove language has IP connotations in its surrounding textual environment, the choice to provide a fully integrated copy (the one "true" version) was the only method that would allow for effective and meaningful review of the IP obligations. Given, for example, the failure to publish timely 'full' copies in a reliable way, this is perhaps proof positive of the potential challenges that would exist if your 'redline-only' IP policy were adopted.<br><br><br><br>I'm not sure how Entrust is doing its IP review, but having a full document with all of the necessary obligations is how Google does its review, and a number of members expressed similar views, and a number of SDOs follow similar approaches.<br><br><br><br>Regarding the proposed Ballot Range - I happened to pick Ballot 187 as the start of examples rather intentionally in my list at <a href="https://cabforum.org/pipermail/public/2018-February/012903.html" target="_blank">https://cabforum.org/<wbr>pipermail/public/2018-<wbr>February/012903.html</a><br><br><br><br>Ballot 183 was the bylaws<br><br>Ballot 184 did not progress<br><br>Ballot 185 failed<br><br>Ballot 186 did not progress<br><br>Ballot 187 was the first, post 180/181/182 set of changes to modify the BRs<br><br><br><br>182 did not progress due to the formation of the PAG<br><br>180, 181, and 182 each proposed to adopt the full documents, but as you recall, used a process that the Forum had never exercised before, even under its previous IPR Policy (namely, the review being kicked off prior to voting, and without the full text or redline provided). There was sufficient ambiguity with that process which was itself problematic.<br><br><br><br><a href="https://cabforum.org/pipermail/public/2017-January/009181.html" target="_blank">https://cabforum.org/<wbr>pipermail/public/2017-January/<wbr>009181.html</a> was the resultant mail that contained those documents<br><br><br><br>-------------- next part --------------<br>An HTML attachment was scrubbed...<br>URL: <<a href="http://cabforum.org/pipermail/public/attachments/20180205/dfbd3cb1/attachment.html" target="_blank">http://cabforum.org/<wbr>pipermail/public/attachments/<wbr>20180205/dfbd3cb1/attachment.<wbr>html</a>><br>-------------- next part --------------<br>A non-text attachment was scrubbed...<br>Name: smime.p7s<br>Type: application/pkcs7-signature<br>Size: 4940 bytes<br>Desc: not available<br>URL: <<a href="http://cabforum.org/pipermail/public/attachments/20180205/dfbd3cb1/attachment.p7s" target="_blank">http://cabforum.org/<wbr>pipermail/public/attachments/<wbr>20180205/dfbd3cb1/attachment.<wbr>p7s</a>><br><br>------------------------------<br><br>Subject: Digest Footer<br><br>______________________________<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><br><br>------------------------------<br><br>End of Public Digest, Vol 70, Issue 31<br>******************************<wbr>********<br></div></div></div><br></div><br>______________________________<wbr>_________________<br>
Public mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:Public@cabforum.org">Public@cabforum.org</a><br>
<a href="https://cabforum.org/mailman/listinfo/public" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://cabforum.org/mailman/<wbr>listinfo/public</a><br>
<br></blockquote></div><br></div>