<html>
  <head>
    <meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
  </head>
  <body text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
    <font face="Cambria">This is your first endorser.</font><br>
    <br>
    Thanks,<br>
    M.D.<br>
    <br>
    <div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 9/16/2018 9:06 PM, Dimitris
      Zacharopoulos via Public wrote:<br>
    </div>
    <blockquote type="cite"
      cite="mid:a487143a-5a84-6d4c-8a3d-cdc1c004e76e@it.auth.gr">
      <meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
      Hi Inigo,<br>
      <br>
      Tim has withdrawn the changes to ETSI because his main goal is to
      just fix the Bylaws with the language of Ballot 206. The risk of
      CAs using the old TS standards is already very high and we should
      not wait any longer to fix this. I'd be happy to propose a new
      ballot to fix the ETSI language for the Bylaws and the SCWG
      charter.<br>
      <br>
      I will propose replacing:<br>
      <br>
      "or ETSI TS 102042, ETSI 101456, or ETSI EN 319 411-1"<br>
      <br>
      with "or ETSI EN 319 411-1". <br>
      <br>
      That's the only change I am currently willing to propose/endorse.
      Looking for two endorsers.<br>
      <br>
      <br>
      Thanks,<br>
      Dimitris.<br>
      <br>
      <br>
      <br>
      <div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 14/9/2018 10:06 πμ, InigoBarreira
        via Servercert-wg wrote:<br>
      </div>
      <blockquote type="cite"
        cite="mid:C749A5FB9E789543BDEE6DAE196B069501253EA0@EX02.corp.qihoo.net">
        <meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html;
          charset=utf-8">
        <style>
<!--
@font-face
        {font-family:"Cambria Math"}
@font-face
        {font-family:Calibri}
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
        {margin:0in;
        margin-bottom:.0001pt;
        font-size:11.0pt;
        font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
        {color:blue;
        text-decoration:underline}
a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed
        {color:purple;
        text-decoration:underline}
p.msonormal0, li.msonormal0, div.msonormal0
        {margin-right:0in;
        margin-left:0in;
        font-size:11.0pt;
        font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif}
span.EmailStyle18
        {font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
        color:windowtext}
span.EmailStyle20
        {font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
        color:windowtext}
.MsoChpDefault
        {font-size:10.0pt}
@page WordSection1
        {margin:1.0in 1.0in 1.0in 1.0in}
-->
</style>
        <style id="owaParaStyle" type="text/css"></style>
        <div style="direction: ltr;font-family: Tahoma;color:
          #000000;font-size: 10pt;">
          <div>Tim,</div>
          <div><br>
          </div>
          <div>I´d remove all mentions to ETSI TS documents (102 042 and
            101 456) in all CABF documents. These TSs have not been
            updated for years, they don´t reflect the current
            requirements of the CABF.</div>
          <div><br>
          </div>
          <div>Regards</div>
          <div style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #000000;
            font-size: 16px">
            <hr tabindex="-1">
            <div id="divRpF281658" style="direction: ltr;"><font
                size="2" face="Tahoma" color="#000000"><b>De:</b>
                Servercert-wg [<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated"
                  href="mailto:servercert-wg-bounces@cabforum.org"
                  moz-do-not-send="true">servercert-wg-bounces@cabforum.org</a>]
                en nombre de Tim Hollebeek via Servercert-wg [<a
                  class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated"
                  href="mailto:servercert-wg@cabforum.org"
                  moz-do-not-send="true">servercert-wg@cabforum.org</a>]<br>
                <b>Enviado:</b> jueves, 13 de septiembre de 2018 20:46<br>
                <b>Para:</b> Tim Hollebeek; CA/Browser Forum Public
                Discussion List; Ryan Sleevi; <a
                  class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated"
                  href="mailto:servercert-wg@cabforum.org"
                  moz-do-not-send="true">servercert-wg@cabforum.org</a><br>
                <b>Asunto:</b> Re: [Servercert-wg] Ballot FORUM-4 v2<br>
              </font><br>
            </div>
            <div>
              <div class="WordSection1">
                <p class="MsoNormal">As discussed on the Validation WG
                  call, this unfortunately is probably not going to be
                  possible for this particular ballot.  Ben did a lot of
                  work to get the current redlined document to
                  accurately reflect what the Bylaws were intended to be
                  at this point.</p>
                <p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
                <p class="MsoNormal">In the attached version 3, I’ve
                  corrected a typo that was left behind after I reverted
                  the ETSI changes.  I would urge a few people to take a
                  close look at it and make sure there are no additional
                  errors …</p>
                <p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
                <p class="MsoNormal">I’ll aim to update the ballot
                  (again, sigh…) once I’ve heard from a few people that
                  it looks good based on analysis that is independent of
                  mine and Ben’s.</p>
                <p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
                <p class="MsoNormal">-Tim</p>
                <p class="MsoNormal"> </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 <a
                          class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E"
                          href="mailto:public-bounces@cabforum.org"
                          moz-do-not-send="true"><public-bounces@cabforum.org></a>
                        <b>On Behalf Of </b>Tim Hollebeek via Public<br>
                        <b>Sent:</b> Thursday, September 13, 2018 9:33
                        AM<br>
                        <b>To:</b> Ryan Sleevi <a
                          class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E"
                          href="mailto:sleevi@google.com"
                          moz-do-not-send="true"><sleevi@google.com></a>;
                        <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated"
                          href="mailto:servercert-wg@cabforum.org"
                          moz-do-not-send="true">servercert-wg@cabforum.org</a><br>
                        <b>Cc:</b> CABFPub <a
                          class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E"
                          href="mailto:public@cabforum.org"
                          moz-do-not-send="true"><public@cabforum.org></a><br>
                        <b>Subject:</b> Re: [cabfpub] [Servercert-wg]
                        Ballot FORUM-4 v2</p>
                    </div>
                  </div>
                  <p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
                  <p class="MsoNormal">I’m highly sympathetic to that,
                    especially with a document as important as the
                    Bylaws.  I’ve had the same concern as well as I look
                    through Ben’s redline.  After looking at it closer
                    on the plane last night, I have some concerns about
                    what appear to be some changes to cross-references
                    that appear correct, but I’m not sure if they’re
                    needed.</p>
                  <p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
                  <p class="MsoNormal">I will also note that I have
                    previously pointed out that according to the Bylaws,
                    redlines are REQUIRED, but cannot be trusted in any
                    way, shape, or form, as our Bylaws clearly state
                    they are ignored for the purposed of updating the
                    requirements.  Yet everyone seems to want to review
                    the redlines, not the ballot text.  As I’ve pointed
                    out several times, creating an additional
                    representation of the changes that is required but
                    cannot be trusted doesn’t help anyone.</p>
                  <p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
                  <p class="MsoNormal">This is really, really silly, and
                    I wish people were more vocal and active in finding
                    a solution to it that works for everyone.  And no, I
                    don’t want to discuss what tools or processes should
                    be used to produce redlines.</p>
                  <p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
                  <p class="MsoNormal">Each ballot should have one and
                    only one official representation of the proposed
                    changes, and no alternative unofficial changes
                    should be required.  I’ve circulated several
                    proposals, but I really don’t care about the
                    details, as long as the problem is solved.</p>
                  <p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
                  <p class="MsoNormal">In this case, I think I’m going
                    to look and see if the Ballot Text from 216 applies
                    cleanly to the latest Bylaws, and produce a redline
                    based on that.</p>
                  <p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
                  <p class="MsoNormal">-Tim</p>
                  <p class="MsoNormal"> </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> Ryan Sleevi
                          <<a href="mailto:sleevi@google.com"
                            target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true">sleevi@google.com</a>>
                          <br>
                          <b>Sent:</b> Thursday, September 13, 2018 2:15
                          AM<br>
                          <b>To:</b> Tim Hollebeek <<a
                            href="mailto:tim.hollebeek@digicert.com"
                            target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true">tim.hollebeek@digicert.com</a>>;
                          <a href="mailto:servercert-wg@cabforum.org"
                            target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true">servercert-wg@cabforum.org</a><br>
                          <b>Cc:</b> CABFPub <<a
                            href="mailto:public@cabforum.org"
                            target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true">public@cabforum.org</a>><br>
                          <b>Subject:</b> Re: [Servercert-wg] Ballot
                          FORUM-4 v2</p>
                      </div>
                    </div>
                    <p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
                    <div>
                      <div>
                        <p class="MsoNormal">Tim,</p>
                      </div>
                      <div>
                        <p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
                      </div>
                      <div>
                        <p class="MsoNormal">I believe there had been a
                          previous suggestion to provide this as a
                          clearer redline, rather than an "Adopt
                          Document X". Can you clarify that?</p>
                      </div>
                      <div>
                        <p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
                      </div>
                      <div>
                        <p class="MsoNormal">By presenting it as you
                          have, it's going to create more work to even
                          make sure that the formatting of the document
                          - claiming to be a redline - actually matches
                          to the last canonical version, and that the
                          changes you've highlighted in red, are, well
                          the changes to be made.</p>
                      </div>
                      <div>
                        <p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
                      </div>
                      <div>
                        <p class="MsoNormal">I hope you can understand
                          why that's more difficult, because it requires
                          wholesale comparison rather than taking the
                          previous version and showing how it would be
                          corrected.</p>
                      </div>
                    </div>
                    <p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
                    <div>
                      <div>
                        <p class="MsoNormal">On Wed, Sep 12, 2018 at
                          9:20 PM Tim Hollebeek via Servercert-wg <<a
                            href="mailto:servercert-wg@cabforum.org"
                            target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true">servercert-wg@cabforum.org</a>>
                          wrote:</p>
                      </div>
                      <blockquote style="border:none; border-left:solid
                        #CCCCCC 1.0pt; padding:0in 0in 0in 6.0pt;
                        margin-left:4.8pt; margin-top:5.0pt;
                        margin-right:0in; margin-bottom:5.0pt">
                        <div>
                          <div>
                            <p class="MsoNormal" style="">Ballot FORUM-4
                              v2: Fix mistakes made during passage of
                              Governance Reform Ballot 206</p>
                            <p class="MsoNormal" style=""> </p>
                            <p class="MsoNormal" style="">Purpose of
                              Ballot</p>
                            <p class="MsoNormal" style=""> </p>
                            <p class="MsoNormal" style="">The Governance
                              Reform ballot (Ballot 206 under the old
                              ballot numbering scheme) was extremely
                              complicated and took roughly two years to
                              draft. </p>
                            <p class="MsoNormal" style="">The changes to
                              the Bylaws from Ballot 216 were intended
                              to be included in the Governance Reform
                              ballot, but were accidentally not
                              included.</p>
                            <p class="MsoNormal" style=""> </p>
                            <p class="MsoNormal" style="">The attached
                              version of the Bylaws restores the
                              important discussion period changes that
                              were approved by the members but then
                              accidentally overwritten.</p>
                            <p class="MsoNormal" style=""> </p>
                            <p class="MsoNormal" style="">The following
                              motion has been proposed by Tim Hollebeek
                              of DigiCert and endorsed by Wayne Thayer
                              of Mozilla and Moudrick Dadashov of SSC.</p>
                            <p class="MsoNormal" style=""> </p>
                            <p class="MsoNormal" style="">--- MOTION
                              BEGINS ---</p>
                            <p class="MsoNormal" style=""> </p>
                            <p class="MsoNormal" style="">This ballot
                              replaces the “Bylaws of the CA/Browser
                              Forum” version 1.9 with version 2.0 of
                              those Bylaws, attached to this ballot.</p>
                            <p class="MsoNormal" style=""> </p>
                            <p class="MsoNormal" style="">--- MOTION
                              ENDS ---</p>
                            <p class="MsoNormal" style=""> </p>
                            <p class="MsoNormal" style="">The procedure
                              for approval of this ballot is as follows:</p>
                            <p class="MsoNormal" style=""> </p>
                            <p class="MsoNormal" style="">Discussion (7
                              days)</p>
                            <p class="MsoNormal" style=""> </p>
                            <p class="MsoNormal" style="">Start Time:
                              2018-09-12, 9:30 pm Eastern Time</p>
                            <p class="MsoNormal" style=""> </p>
                            <p class="MsoNormal" style="">End Time:
                              2018-09-19, 9:30 pm Eastern Time</p>
                            <p class="MsoNormal" style=""> </p>
                            <p class="MsoNormal" style="">Vote for
                              approval (7 days)</p>
                            <p class="MsoNormal" style=""> </p>
                            <p class="MsoNormal" style="">Start Time:
                              2018-09-19, 9:30 pm Eastern Time</p>
                            <p class="MsoNormal" style=""> </p>
                            <p class="MsoNormal" style="">End Time:
                              2018-09-26, 9:30 pm Eastern Time</p>
                            <p class="MsoNormal" style=""> </p>
                          </div>
                        </div>
                        <p class="MsoNormal">_______________________________________________<br>
                          Servercert-wg mailing list<br>
                          <a href="mailto:Servercert-wg@cabforum.org"
                            target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true">Servercert-wg@cabforum.org</a><br>
                          <a
                            href="http://cabforum.org/mailman/listinfo/servercert-wg"
                            target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true">http://cabforum.org/mailman/listinfo/servercert-wg</a></p>
                      </blockquote>
                    </div>
                  </div>
                </div>
              </div>
            </div>
          </div>
        </div>
        <br>
        <fieldset class="mimeAttachmentHeader"></fieldset>
        <br>
        <pre wrap="">_______________________________________________
Servercert-wg mailing list
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:Servercert-wg@cabforum.org" moz-do-not-send="true">Servercert-wg@cabforum.org</a>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://cabforum.org/mailman/listinfo/servercert-wg" moz-do-not-send="true">http://cabforum.org/mailman/listinfo/servercert-wg</a>
</pre>
      </blockquote>
      <br>
      <br>
      <fieldset class="mimeAttachmentHeader"></fieldset>
      <br>
      <pre wrap="">_______________________________________________
Public mailing list
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:Public@cabforum.org">Public@cabforum.org</a>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://cabforum.org/mailman/listinfo/public">https://cabforum.org/mailman/listinfo/public</a>
</pre>
    </blockquote>
    <br>
  </body>
</html>