<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. <b><br>
</b>
<h2 class="MsoNormal">Attendees (in alphabetical order)</h2>
Clint Wilson (Apple), Corey Bonnell (SecureTrust), Chris
Kemmerer (SSL.com), Curt Spann (Apple), Daniela Hood (GoDaddy),
Dean Coclin (Digicert), Dimitris Zacharopoulos (HARICA), Doug
Beattie (GlobalSign), Dustin Hollenback (Microsoft), Enrico
Entschew (D-TRUST), Inaba Atsushi (GlobalSign), Joanna Fox
(GoDaddy), Jos Purvis (Cisco Systems), Leo Grove (SSL.com),
Li-Chun Chen (Chunghwa Telecom), Mads Henriksveen (Buypass AS),
Michelle Coon (OATI), Mike Reilly (Microsoft), Neil Dunbar
(TrustCor Systems), Niko Carpenter (SecureTrust), Patrick Nohe
(GlobalSign), Peter Miskovic (Disig), Rich Smith (Sectigo), Ryan
Sleevi (Google), Shelley Brewer (Digicert), Thanos Vrachnos
(SSL.com), Tim Hollebeek (Digicert), 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>
<h3> </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">Accepted without changes.</p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
<h3 class="MsoNormal">4. Approval of minutes from last
teleconference <br>
</h3>
<p>Approved without objections.<br>
</p>
<h3 class="MsoNormal">5. Forum Infrastructure Subcommittee
update</h3>
<ul>
<li>Updates on pandoc ballot</li>
<li>Etherpad instance, test, make sure it is ok and activate
before the F2F, move information to the wiki after the F2F
and deactivate.<br>
</li>
<li>Discussed about migration of the web site to the hosted
environment and the mailing lists. Need follow-ups with
service providers.<br>
</li>
<li>WebEx test with Peter (coordinate timing with the hotel).<br>
</li>
</ul>
<h3 class="MsoNormal">6. Code Signing Working Group update</h3>
<ul>
<li>No meeting. <br>
</li>
<li>The WG is finalizing the date for a code signing summit at
Microsoft's offices in Redmond on March 17 or 18. The date
will be finalized next week during the call. Guest speakers
from Microsoft will participate.<br>
</li>
</ul>
<h3 class="MsoNormal">7. Follow-up on new S/MIME WG Charter</h3>
<p>The ballot is in the voting period.<br>
</p>
<p>Clint mentioned that the Forum agreed to go forward but the
discussion period should not be considered a formality. <br>
<br>
Tim responded that the comments were reviewed but they were
part of a fundamental disagreement that was being discussed
for over a year. Tim respects the different opinion of some
members and we will see how the vote goes.<br>
<br>
Ryan highlighted the fact that there was more substantive
feedback than just the identity issue. Google reviewed it with
Legal and IP team and this took almost the entirety of 7 days.
In the process of doing that they wanted to provide
improvements to structural issues of the draft charter. Apple
also provided useful feedback. There were more suggestions
unrelated to the identity issue. Unfortunately there was no
response from the draft proposers before starting the voting
period. Google intends to vote "No", not just because they
can't participate but because it would be detrimental.<br>
<br>
Tim: The feedback was considered but did not have any
structural/substantive changes. This ballot was almost in the
same identical form for over a year now and there was plenty
of time, beyond 7 days, for any member to provide feedback.
People are welcome to provide any constructive feedback even
by voting the way they choose to vote and see where we go from
there.</p>
<p>Ryan disagreed that the ballot was discussed for more than a
year. He provided a timeline of events where Ben circulated
the draft ballot in January and Google provided substantive
feedback. No updates were provided since then. Concerns were
raised and remained unaddressed, especially the structural
issues.<br>
</p>
<p> Clint: A few points were important to discuss. As an
example, using some RFC terminology in the draft charter was
odd. Some minor changes that were non-controversial could be
accepted. Without any feedback, we don't know if there is any
disagreement on any of the points raised.<br>
<br>
Wayne: Other valuable feedback, aside from identity, may have
been overlooked. As an endorser of the ballot he wasn't sure
if the points raised were substantial enough to warrant voting
against this ballot. He encourages discussion on this feedback
and Dimitris posted a point that might be worth discussing. At
this point though, we have to let the ballot run its course.
Members must consider whether it's worth moving this ballot
forward and see this Working Group, that has been pending for
almost two years, being created with some sub-optimal parts of
the charter, or to vote against it and bring these additional
pieces of feedback in a revised charter. This additional
feedback was missed in an honest attempt to just move things
forward. For Wayne, it was difficult to distinguish whether
the feedback was related to identity or other issues. Let's
keep getting feedback and if the feedback is significant
enough, it might make members vote against it.</p>
<p>Mike agreed with Wayne that there are two issues at hand, the
identity issue will only be resolved by voting on the ballot.
The other feedback was not to be ignored but it kind of danced
around the identity issue.</p>
<p>Tim added that the review of the feedback resulted that some
of the issues raised were either unresolvable or relatively
minor which is why they decided to go ahead with starting the
voting period.<br>
</p>
<p> Ryan replied that there was substantive feedback on
Membership qualifications with regards to how that's defined.
This feedback was not incorporated despite repeated attempts
to flag it as an ongoing concern. Regardless of how members
feel about identity, it defines how participation is judged
and how ongoing membership is continued. This information is
available in previous postings on the mailing list along with
suggested edits related to identity and to membership. Ryan
considers unfortunate the fact that there was no attempt to
even respond to this feedback.<br>
<br>
Tim encouraged anyone to point to particular issues that they
feel is important, to highlight them individually. There was a
long history of discussion for this ballot. It would be
extremely helpful for individual edits and very constructive
to point directly to suggested edits they feel strongly about.</p>
<p>Ryan added that an alternative approach, if this ballot
fails, would be for a different group of people to introduce
the ballot because after several years of providing feedback
unrelated to identity, this feedback was ignored.<br>
</p>
<p>Tim responded that the feedback was not ignored and this is
an unfair statement. There is a lot of work to be done, the
Forum does not run itself and some people are working hard to
keep things moving. It's difficult work and we appreciate
anyone who can help.<br>
</p>
<p>Dimitris tried to summarize the discussion by stating that we
will probably not be able to resolve the identity issue, this
will be determined by the vote of each Member. As far as the
other feedback is concerned, that is not related to identity,
we should make an attempt to discuss even having a few days
before the voting ends. If there are some previous discussions
that point out to specific edits that are not related to
identity but are related to Membership, Member voting, it
would be helpful if these were highlighted somehow.<br>
</p>
<p> Ryan replied that this is not necessarily a good course. The
vote will be ambiguous whether the members will vote "No" for
ambiguity or "No" for some of the process or other issues. If
the ballot fails it will be unclear whether the ballot failed
because of the identity issue or other reasons. While we can
continue to discuss how to resolve these other reasons, we
will not be able to reach a conclusion about identity. It
seems that this ballot will not be able to give the level of
guidance that was intended by bringing it to a vote in its
current state.</p>
<h3><b>Skipped 8 on the Agenda, apologies :-)</b></h3>
<h3 class="MsoNormal">9. Approve Agenda for F2F 49</h3>
The agenda as posted on 2020-02-07 was approved.
<h3 class="MsoNormal">10. Allow Chair/Vice-Chair to make
informative (not normative) changes to Final Guidelines and
Final Maintenance Guidelines</h3>
Dimitris went over the proposed change to allow this in the
Bylaws. There were no objections raised on the call for the
suggested changes. Ryan didn't have time to review the
recommended changes. Dimitris mentioned that Bylaws changes will
be discussed at the upcoming F2F. <br>
<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">11.
Any Other Business</h3>
<p>Peter asked the list of attendees to close on Monday. They
can still accommodate a few more people and asked if anyone
expects to register this week to contact him and the Chair.<br>
</p>
<ul>
</ul>
<h3 class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:1.0pt;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:1.0pt;margin-left:0in">12.
Next call<br>
</h3>
March 5, 2020 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 9-11 Minneapolis
(OATI), October 20-22 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>