[cabf_governance] [Ticket#2016051701001374] Preliminary Work on Governance Models

LeaderTelecom B.V. info at leadertelecom.nl
Tue May 17 00:21:34 MST 2016

A working group is an ad hoc group of subject-matter experts working together
to achieve specified goals. The lifespan of a working group can last anywhere
between a few months and several years.

Is it really temporary activity? 

Kind regards,
Aleksei Ivanov
Managing Director
LeaderTelecom B.V.

17.05.2016 05:09 - Peter Bowen wrote: I agree that “Working Group” is a common
term in SDOs and fairly well defined.  I
think that the bottom boxes on Ben’s diagram are best called working groups.

As to the IPR Policy, I think it probably makes sense to have a common policy
all WGs but have it scoped to the WG.  This way members do not have to join
WG and can devote time and resources to the ones they find applicable.  Under
current IPR scope this is not really possible as every member is responsible
disclosure for every WG.  Imagine if the Forum were to grow to be as diverse
IETF or Oasis — keeping up with all the WGs would be more than a full time

We should also reserve “working group” for groups expected to develop a
Guideline/standard.  Simply disucssing an amendment to an existing doc should
rise to the level of WG.  This is not to say that WGs cannot decide to host
conference calls on a specific topic, but just discussing changes to a section
a doc should not rise to WG level.


> On May 16, 2016, at 11:48 AM, Virginia Fournier <vfournier at apple.com> wrote:
> Hi Jos,
> The term “Working Group” is used by other SDOs such as W3C and IETF to
identify the various groups under the SDO umbrella to work on specific specs. 
 These are not ad hoc groups, but the groups where the significant work on the
specs is done.
> [1]http://www.w3.org/Consortium/activities
> [2]https://datatracker.ietf.org/wg/
> I agree that the simpler the org structure is, the better.
> Best regards,
> Virginia Fournier
> Senior Standards Counsel
>  Apple Inc.
> ☏ 669-227-9595
> ✉︎ vmf at apple.com
> On May 16, 2016, at 11:38 AM, Jos Purvis (jopurvis) <jopurvis at cisco.com>
> Some quick off-the-cuff responses to provide fodder for discussion:
> If we're broadening the scope of the forum to encompass code signing,
hardware certificates, client certs, document signing, and so forth, I think
the name "CA/Browser Forum" isn't as useful any longer. Those are certainly
the critical parties when it comes to SSL/TLS for the Web, but there are a
number of other groups that get involved in each of those subgroups in place
of—or alongside—browsers: hardware manufacturers, software companies, and so
forth. To that end, I'd propose something more like "Digital Certificate
Standards Forum", with subgroups under it for each of the focus areas.
> I would further suggest the subgroups be titled "Forum", "Subcommittee",
"Standards Group", or the like--"Working Group" suggests an ad-hoc formation
like the PAG that might be disbanded, and thus might not be expected to have
its own IPR and functional rules. That could be just me being overly
language-specific, though. :)
> For the umbrella org (the "DCSF", if you will), I do think you would need
some kind of leadership council/board of directors. I would avoid making two
of them (too much bureaucratic overhead, too many meetings, too much potential
for conflict), but instead make one with a set of standing officers and then
representation from each of the subgroups. That leads to the question of
whether the officers for that would be elected (and how) and under what sorts
of terms.
>  --Jos
> --
> Jos Purvis (jopurvis at cisco.com)  |  _.|._.|._ cisco systems
> Cryptographic Compliance, Identity Assurance Services
> +1 919.991.9114 (desk) | PGP: 0x89a3b545 / 0x07d19105
> On 2016-May-16, 14:24, "govreform-bounces at cabforum.org on behalf of Ben
Wilson" <govreform-bounces at cabforum.org on behalf of ben.wilson at digicert.com>
>> Prior to our face-to-face meeting next week, I think we have some
preliminary matters that we should consider.
>> For instance, do members prefer that the  CA/B Forum remain the umbrella
organization (if we’re going to have an umbrella organization).
>> Or should a new umbrella organization be created?  Consider these two
>> <image001.png><image002.png>
>> The names are just placeholders.  Do we want to use “Forum”, “Working
Group,” “Standing Committee”, “Subcommittee”, “Technical Committee”, etc?
>> Should governance policies/procedures be documented outside of the Bylaws
in a document titled “Rules of Association”, “Operating Procedures”, or
>> Should the umbrella organization have a Board of Directors/Trustees,
Steering Committee, Leadership/Management Council, or similar?  If so, should
there be two such upper-level bodies (Board and a Council) with differing
>> One reason for the approach taken above is that I am assuming we want
committee/group structures with the ability of each committee/group to have a
different IPR Policy.   Thoughts on this?
>> Thanks,
>> Ben
> <image001.png><image002.png>_______________________________________________
> Govreform mailing list
> Govreform at cabforum.org
> [3]https://cabforum.org/mailman/listinfo/govreform
> _______________________________________________
> Govreform mailing list
> Govreform at cabforum.org
> [4]https://cabforum.org/mailman/listinfo/govreform

Govreform mailing list
Govreform at cabforum.org

[1] http://www.w3.org/Consortium/activities
[2] https://datatracker.ietf.org/wg/
[3] https://cabforum.org/mailman/listinfo/govreform
[4] https://cabforum.org/mailman/listinfo/govreform
[5] https://cabforum.org/mailman/listinfo/govreform
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: https://cabforum.org/pipermail/govreform/attachments/20160517/6d5533b3/attachment.html 

More information about the Govreform mailing list