<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:#1F497D;}
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>Or we could just avoid the problem by not creating it in the first place.<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>Speaking as someone who attended most of the governance reform calls, if we learned one thing from governance reform, it’s that simpler is better, and gets us to consensus faster.<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><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>Kirk Hall via Public<br><b>Sent:</b> Tuesday, July 17, 2018 1:11 PM<br><b>To:</b> CA/Browser Forum Public Discussion List <public@cabforum.org><br><b>Subject:</b> Re: [cabfpub] Elections<o:p></o:p></p></div></div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:#1F497D'>Tim – if future WGs are started mid-year, it would be easy to sync up the initial officer terms to the “standard” officer terms of the Forum and existing WGs – you just have either begin with a “short term” initial term (for example, “The initial term of the S/MIME WG Chair shall run from May 15, 2019 to Oct. 31, 2019. Thereafter, terms of officers of the S/MIME WG shall run from November 1 of the election year through October 31 two years later.” Or the initial term can be a “long term” - “The initial term of the S/MIME WG Chair shall run from September 10, 2019 to Oct. 31, 2021. Thereafter, terms of officers of the S/MIME WG shall run from November 1 of the election year through October 31 two years later.” Each new WG would have control of the initial term for officers, and can make it sync up to a standard two year term for all officers.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></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>Tim Hollebeek via Public<br><b>Sent:</b> Tuesday, July 17, 2018 9:01 AM<br><b>To:</b> CA/Browser Forum Public Discussion List <<a href="mailto:public@cabforum.org">public@cabforum.org</a>><br><b>Subject:</b> [EXTERNAL][cabfpub] Elections<o:p></o:p></p></div></div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>As a reminder, we ended up with the current SCWG chairs and election rules because we were unable to reach agreement on the election rules. So we punted it to the SCWG to handle once it was formed, to avoid blocking progress on getting governance reform passed. I don’t see a good reason to delay resolving those issues and having elections now that the SCWG exists.<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>I am extremely concerned that one of the proposals involves changes to the election procedures at the Forum level. I see no compelling reason why that is necessary, and why the current terms and rules should not be left alone. Attempting to modify the Forum elections as well will add complexity and controversy with no added benefit. We should focus on what the SCWG rules should be, and agree sustainable long-term rules and a good precedents for new working groups instead of basing proposals on short term considerations. For example, it probably will not be possible for the WG elections to be in sync with the main forum, if only because the S/MIME working group, which is likely to exist very soon, won’t exist soon enough to have elections in sync with the main Forum.<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>-Tim<o:p></o:p></p></div></div></body></html>