<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=utf-8">
<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:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman",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;}
span.EmailStyle18
{mso-style-type:personal-reply;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
color:#1F497D;}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;}
@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"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D">I think you are mistaken in your first point – there were several people who spoke in favor of keeping governance change issues at the Forum level in some way
(e.g. an informal group Forum members working together, or a “Committee of the Whole” of the Forum working on these issues at the Forum level – like we did this morning. So there are multiple opinions on the best way to move forward.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D">I don’t understand your second question at all – what do you mean by “assessment” and “implications”? It seems my draft language addresses your concern that
this subcommittee could create IP and/or become implicated with the IPR Agreement – it can’t and it won’t. As you know, when we have changed Bylaws in the past and updated our website and wiki, there have never been IP issues and never a need for IPR Agreement
review. Can you clarify with your own assessments and implications from simply allowing Subcommittees that don’t work on Guidelines?<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D">Putting Forum governance issues in a WG that is separate from the Forum seems very odd – a Governance WG can never pass its own WG ballots (the WG can’t change
the Bylaws itself), but instead will have to forward recommendations to the Forum itself and ask the Forum to pass a ballot changing the Bylaws, etc. This is an odd process, and it would make more sense to me to simply do this drafting work in a Subcommittee
of the Forum (just as we used to do, only we used the term WG then).<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">From:</span></b><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif"> Ryan Sleevi [mailto:sleevi@google.com]
<br>
<b>Sent:</b> Tuesday, October 16, 2018 1:00 PM<br>
<b>To:</b> Kirk Hall <Kirk.Hall@entrustdatacard.com>; CABFPub <public@cabforum.org><br>
<b>Subject:</b> [EXTERNAL]Re: [cabfpub] Draft Bylaws 5.6 - Subcommittees of the CA/Browser Forum<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">On Mon, Oct 15, 2018 at 11:45 PM Kirk Hall via Public <<a href="mailto:public@cabforum.org">public@cabforum.org</a>> wrote:<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<blockquote style="border:none;border-left:solid #CCCCCC 1.0pt;padding:0in 0in 0in 6.0pt;margin-left:4.8pt;margin-right:0in">
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto">Here is a possible amendment to the Bylaws that would allow us to create Subcommittees of the Forum, and would require the same transparency as is required today for the Forum.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"> <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto">This Bylaws change could be passed by a Forum ballot in as little as two weeks. We could then have a second ballot to create a Governance Subcommittee of the Forum. No IP issues
are involved, so there is no requirement of IPR Review.<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">Thank you for your suggestion. It certainly is one approach that can take, and it seems one that does not incorporate any of the feedback that members have offered, but it certainly provides a path forward.<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">Can you help explain what assessment Entrust Datacard has done on the provided language and its implications? And what other members you've consulted, to lead to the confidence that there are no IP issues involved?<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</body>
</html>