<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
</head>
<body text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
<div class="moz-text-html" lang="x-western">
<div class="WordSection1"><br>
These are the final Minutes of the Teleconference described in
the subject of this message.<br>
<h2 class="MsoNormal">Attendees (in alphabetical order)</h2>
Adam Clark (Visa), Ben Wilson (Digicert), Chris Kemmerer
(SSL.com), Daniela Hood (GoDaddy), Dean Coclin (Digicert),
Dimitris Zacharopoulos (HARICA), Dustin Hollenback (Microsoft),
Eva Vansteenberge (GlobalSign), Huo Haitao (Halton) (360
Browser), Inaba Atsushi (GlobalSign), Janet Hines (SecureTrust),
Joanna Fox (GoDaddy), Jos Purvis (Cisco Systems), Kirk Hall
(Entrust Datacard), Li-Chun Chen (Chunghwa Telecom), Mads
Henriksveen (Buypass AS), Michelle Coon (OATI), Mike Reilly
(Microsoft), Neil Dunbar (TrustCor Systems), Niko Carpenter
(SecureTrust), Peter Miskovic (Disig), Rich Smith (Sectigo),
Robin Alden (Sectigo), Ryan Sleevi (Google), Scott Rea (Dark
Matter), Shelley Brewer (Digicert), Tim Hollebeek (Digicert),
Timo Schmitt (SwissSign), Tobias Josefowitz (Opera Software AS),
Trevoli Ponds-White (Amazon), Vincent Lynch (Digicert), Wayne
Thayer (Mozilla), Wendy Brown (US Federal PKI Management
Authority).
<h2 class="MsoNormal">Minutes <br>
</h2>
<h3> 1. Roll Call<br>
</h3>
The Chair took attendance.
<h3 class="MsoNormal">2. Read Antitrust Statement<br>
</h3>
<p class="MsoNormal">The Antitrust Statement was read. </p>
<h3 class="MsoNormal">3. Review Agenda<br>
</h3>
<p class="MsoNormal">No changes to the agenda.</p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
<h3 class="MsoNormal">4. Discuss Action Items from the recent
F2F 48 meeting <br>
</h3>
Infrastructure Subcommittee<br>
<ul>
<li>Jos and Ryan will continue to work on a ballot to make the
BRs "pandoc friendly"</li>
<ul>
<li>As discussed in the SCWG meeting, this is work in
progress, Jos is waiting for SC23 and SC24 to be merged in
the master branch of GitHub, rebase and update the
proposed changes.<br>
</li>
</ul>
<li>Trev to investigate about allowing incoming/outgoing SMTP
traffic to new VMs</li>
<ul>
<li>Trev confirmed the action item.<br>
</li>
</ul>
<li>Someone (?) to plan for Etherpad installation for next F2F</li>
<ul>
<li>Jos volunteered to work on this task<br>
</li>
</ul>
</ul>
S/MIME WG<br>
<ul>
<li>Someone (?) to draft and send the charter based on the F2F
discussion. Unfortunately the minutes are missing and the
recording is not available yet.</li>
<ul>
<li>Tim mentioned that a couple of people are working on a
charter and he hopes to be able to send a draft out today.<br>
</li>
</ul>
</ul>
Photo Policy<br>
<ul>
<li>Dimitris to finalize the draft proposal and describe the
red/dark blue lanyard colors to indicate
additional-privacy/no-additional-privacy request.</li>
<li>Ryan to propose language improvements for the
"attribution" to IETF.</li>
</ul>
Issues with Bylaws<br>
<ul>
<li>Dimitris to propose text for Bylaws so that each Member
participating in a Working Group to designate voting
representatives. If a Member wants to designate different
representatives for the Forum level compared to the Working
Group level, they can do so. Only votes from official
representatives will count. Each voting representative may
extend or restrict the set of voting members. Voting
representatives can also be introduced or removed by a
Member's legal (or properly delegated) representative.</li>
<ul>
<li>Dimitris to prepare some draft language in the following
weeks.</li>
<li>Tim mentioned that Digicert is not necessarily opposed
to this language but during the F2F discussion there were
some members who expressed the opinion that this is more
of a problem with an organization that may be having
trouble controlling who votes for their organization. This
seems to be more of a Member-type of problem rather than a
CA/B Forum problem. Ryan asked if Digicert could share
some information about the change of opinion on this
subject and Tim replied that there are concerns that this
process of introducing this language and clarifying will
take time. If this can get quickly resolved, that's worth
doing. But there are concerns that it might take more than
it's worth. This is trying to solve a problem that the
Forum has not experienced before.</li>
<li>Dimitris responded that different opinions were heard at
the F2F and hopefully have been captured in the minutes,
we may not reach a full agreement on this topic but he
will make an effort to write a proposal and send it out to
see if it works for everyone. He also added that this
problem will become more important as the Forum grows.<br>
</li>
</ul>
</ul>
Who signs the IPR Agreement<br>
<ul>
<li>Dimitris (and Ryan?) to describe the scenario where the
CA/B Forum receives an application from a CA, which is the
"Owner", but that CA uses a different Legal Entity as the CA
"Operator". The "Operator" is the one likely to participate
in CA/B Forum activities and likely to "Contribute". The
safe approach is to require both Legal Entities to sign the
IPR Agreement.</li>
<ul>
<li>Draft language in the Bylaws to give guidance for this
particular scenario because we had it more than once. It
shouldn't be too hard to describe this. Ryan agreed it
should be trivial to describe what happens when a Member
delegates participation or the operations of their CA and
also voting. We could imagine a scenario where the Policy
Management Authority controls the voting rights and
delegates the other operations and participation. We could
allow this flexibility if this is combined with the
previous discussion about voting representatives.</li>
<li>Dimitris and Ryan can continue this offline and work on
this language.</li>
<li>There was some additional discussion about current Forum
examples of Members with delegated partners (Network
Solutions - Sectigo, FPKI - delegated contractors, etc).<br>
</li>
</ul>
</ul>
Concept of member<br>
<ul>
<li>Ryan to work with counsel to identify inconsistencies. </li>
<li>Ben recommended to go through the Bylaws/IPR Policy and
flag instances that contain inconsistencies. Actions?</li>
<ul>
<li>Ryan mentioned that this is a similar problem as the
problem with the legal representatives.</li>
<li>Ben was not sure if it was the same thing but he noticed
that we don't have a "member agreement" but just an "IPR
agreement" which may not bind a Member to the Bylaws. Ryan
replied that this should probably not lead in creating a
new membership agreement document. Tim mentioned that this
could be an "interesting" area because the IPR Policy is
mentioned in the Bylaws and if there is no legally-binding
process for the Members to follow the Bylaws it would lead
into "interesting" situations. Ryan replied that by
binding a Member to the IPR Policy, automatically binds
them with the Bylaws. It might be a lot to unpack on this
call and suggested we either discuss at the next call or
on the list. Dimitris recommended that we hold off on
opening this topic and work with other action items with
more priority. This won't go away from the list of issues.<br>
</li>
</ul>
</ul>
Time requirements for CAs as Associate Members<br>
<ul>
<li>Dimitris to describe a process to evaluate CAs that are
Associate Members once a year. There is no need to change
the Bylaws but we should try to have a clear process to
implement the policy requirement to review CAs that are in
the Associate Member category.</li>
<ul>
<li>There were some good suggestions from Jos.<br>
</li>
</ul>
</ul>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
<h3 class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:1.0pt;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:1.0pt;margin-left:0in">5.
Any Other Business</h3>
<br>
Dean reminded Members and Associate Members to vote on Doug's
Doodle poll for the Fall 2020 F2F meeting. Dimitris also
reminded people to register for the Bratislava meeting.<br>
<br>
Finally, Jos mentioned that the Infrastructure Subcommittee
meeting invitate was just sent out to 6-7 participants that were
active in previous meetings. If anyone is interested in
attending the subcommittee's activities, he will post the
meeting information on the wiki.<br>
<h3 class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:1.0pt;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:1.0pt;margin-left:0in">6.
Next call<br>
</h3>
December 12, 2019 at 11:00 am Eastern Time.
<h3 class="MsoNormal">Adjourned</h3>
<h3><b>F2F Meeting Schedule: </b></h3>
<ul>
<li>2020: Feb<font color="#ff0000"> <font color="#000000">18-20
</font></font>Bratislava (Disig), June – Minneapolis
(OATI), October – Tokyo (GlobalSign)</li>
<li>2021: Feb-March Dubai (DarkMatter), May 25-27 Poland
(Asseco-Certum), October - San Jose, CA or RTP, NC (Cisco)</li>
<li>2022: Mar-April New Delhi / Bengaluru (e-Mudhra), June - <font
color="#ff0000">[Open]</font>, October <font
color="#ff0000">[Open]</font></li>
</ul>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
</div>
</div>
</body>
</html>