<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:11.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-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;}
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-reply;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;}
.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>Because diverse and sometimes even contradictory root program requirements are not a good thing. It seems like we should be able to reach agreement on what the minimum criteria should be, just as we have for TLS.<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> Ryan Sleevi <sleevi@google.com> <br><b>Sent:</b> Monday, January 28, 2019 3:14 PM<br><b>To:</b> Tim Hollebeek <tim.hollebeek@digicert.com><br><b>Cc:</b> Wayne Thayer <wthayer@mozilla.com>; CA/Browser Forum Public Discussion List <public@cabforum.org><br><b>Subject:</b> Re: [cabfpub] Draft SMIME Working Group Charter<o:p></o:p></p></div></div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><div><div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p></div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><div><div><p class=MsoNormal>On Mon, Jan 28, 2019 at 2:44 PM Tim Hollebeek <<a href="mailto:tim.hollebeek@digicert.com">tim.hollebeek@digicert.com</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'>I’m fine with “or equivalent” exceptions for various use cases, as long as we specify what those are and they accomplish the same goals. I do have strong opinions about how “*.gov” should be managed, specifically that I don’t think it’s possible to assure that the domain portion of the email is being consistently validated, absent some oversight by some independent entity.<o:p></o:p></p></div></div></blockquote><div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal>I suppose this will be a core part of the discussion, then. I will, however, note that ICANN has adopted a very different philosophy than you with respect to domain names, and similarly, Microsoft has recognized the distinction with how they manage their program. This also aligns with a variety of other technology and non-technology sectors, and is, perhaps, a core part of disagreement.<o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal>Could you help me understand why, for purposes of CA/B Forum membership, you believe they should be overseen by someone that the CA/B Forum designates, rather than by an entity that a root program designates? Perhaps I'm missing why it's important to exclude these parties from the Forum, as that might help clarify the language.<o:p></o:p></p></div></div></div></div></div></body></html>