[cabf_governance] CABF as a formal organization

Moudrick M. Dadashov md at ssc.lt
Fri Nov 18 03:30:49 MST 2016

Please, if I may, a couple more questions:

1) Why in some cases *CA Browser Forum* has been recognized by ETSI a 
"real entity" (e.g. see ETSI EN 319 412-4 V1.1.1 (2016-02) /Electronic 
Signatures and Infrastructures (ESI); Certificate Profiles; Part 4: 
Certificate profile for web site certificates/):

(a) "/The present document aims to maximize the interoperability of 
systems issuing and using certificates both in the European context 
under the Regulation (EU) No 910/2014 [i.3] and in the wider 
international environment, also by meeting requirements from //*CA 
Browser Forum*//./";

(b) /The following referenced documents //_*are necessary*_//for the 
application of the present document.//
//      [2] CA/Browser Forum: "Baseline Requirements for the Issuance 
and Management of Publicly-Trusted Certificates".//
//      [3] CA/Browser Forum: "Guidelines for The Issuance and 
Management of Extended Validation Certificates".//
whereas for a "formal partnership" the recognition above doesn't apply?

2) Wouldn't it be appropriate for ETSI (with the assistance of 
Commission?) to take internal arrangements to recognize the forum a 
"formal partner"?


On 11/17/2016 9:53 PM, Virginia Fournier via Govreform wrote:
> Hi - some additional things to think about:
> 1.  Do the benefits of a “formal partnership" with ETSI outweigh the 
> risks Kirk has outlined below?  What are those benefits from a CAB 
> Forum standpoint? What would CAB Forum get that they aren’t already 
> getting?
> 2.  How would CAB Forum’s IPR Policy need to change to be “compatible” 
> with ETSI’s policy?  ETSI’s IPR policy is quite a bit different from 
> the CAB Forum’s policy.
> http://www.etsi.org/images/files/ipr/etsi-ipr-policy.pdf
> 3.  Is CAB Forum prepared to charge fees for participation and to have 
> a governing board who’s responsible for all of the overhead, budget, 
> corporate responsibilities, legal matters, etc.?
> Best regards,
> Virginia Fournier
> Senior Standards Counsel
>  Apple Inc.
> ☏ 669-227-9595
> ✉︎ vmf at apple.com <mailto:vmf at apple.com>
> On Nov 16, 2016, at 9:23 PM, Kirk Hall via Govreform 
> <govreform at cabforum.org <mailto:govreform at cabforum.org>> wrote:
> Thanks, Dean.  I don’t feel strongly about this, but I have been 
> through this before with another organization.
> People say “we need to be a real entity” so they decide to 
> incorporate.  What form – if a non-profit corporation, then you have 
> to meet certain government criteria, and maybe file with the IRS to 
> gain non-profit status.
> Where? Someone’s home state or province?  Delaware?  Who will be the 
> registered contact people?  Then you have to figure out how to pay the 
> annual filing fees and fees for a registered agent.  Oh, yeah – you 
> need articles of incorporation, officers, etc.  And you probably have 
> to file an annual tax return, state and federal. And then after a 
> couple of years, everyone forgets and someone who is no longer active 
> is still listed as President or Secretary.  And maybe the corporation 
> gets dissolved for non-compliance.
> Then there is the issue of being sued – in one sense, no big deal if 
> the corporation has no assets, just don’t respond to the lawsuit (of 
> course, a lawyer needs to look at this and advise the corporation - 
> $$), the person suing (to stop something, or for damages) gets a 
> default judgment, and the CABF as a corporation is dissolved.   Then what?
> On the other hand, if the CABF becomes a corporation, we can get an EV 
> cert at last! J
> *From:*Govreform [mailto:govreform-bounces at cabforum.org]*On Behalf 
> Of*Dean Coclin via Govreform
> *Sent:*Wednesday, November 16, 2016 8:22 PM
> *To:*Govreform at cabforum.org <mailto:Govreform at cabforum.org>
> *Cc:*Dean Coclin <Dean_Coclin at symantec.com>
> *Subject:*[cabf_governance] FW: CABF as a formal organization
> As discussed on the last call, there was interest in having the forum 
> become a formal organization. Below is the reason from ETSI, for 
> discussion on the next call.
> Dean
> *From:*Sonia Compans
> *Sent:*Wednesday, November 16, 2016 11:18 PM
> *To:*Dean Coclin
> *Cc:*arno.fiedler at outlook.com <mailto:arno.fiedler at outlook.com>; 
> Xavier Piednoir
> *Subject:*RE: CABF as a formal organization
> Hi Dean,
> This was even faster than I expected as I could get the feedback from 
> our External Relations officer quickly (Xavier Piednoir, here in copy).
> Let me explain the potential benefits of CAB Forum becoming a legal 
> entity, at least from the ETSI viewpoint.
> For several years now, ETSI and CAB Forum have had some kind of 
> collaboration for policies for website certificates resulting in ETSI 
> standards building on CAB Forum specifications and ETSI scheme being 
> recognized by CAB Forum. As CAB Forum has so far not been a legal 
> entity, ETSI and CAB Forum signed a Letter of Intent (in 2009) which 
> only allows exchanging informational material and no having technical 
> collaboration. So far the collaboration has in fact taken place thanks 
> to common members, i.e. Izenpe.
> If CAB Forum becomes a legal entity, ETSI and CAB Forum could set up a 
> formal partnership and sign a Memorandum of Understanding or a 
> cooperation agreement.
> An MoU would allow formal technical collaboration with nomination of 
> CAB Forum observers in ETSI TC ESI  and vice-versa, with exchange of 
> working documents and drafts, technical discussions, joint promotion 
> through e.g. workshops, literature.
> A cooperation agreement allows all what is possible with an MoU plus 
> creating joint specifications, incorporation of text from the other 
> party, adoption of publicly available specifications  in to ETSI 
> Technical Specifications or Technical Reports. This level requires the 
> compatibility of the Partner’s IPR Policy with ETSI’s.
> I hope this helps and we would be interested in knowing the outcome of 
> CABF discussions.
> Best regards
> *Sonia Compans****–*Technical Officer
> *ETSI*●www.etsi.org <http://www.etsi.org/>●_sonia.compans at etsi.org 
> <mailto:sonia.compans at etsi.org>_
> Phone: +33 (0)4 92 94 43 36●Mobile: +33 (0)6 67 15 58 49
> This email may contain confidential information and is intended for 
> the use of the addressee only. Any unauthorized use may be unlawful. 
> If you receive this email by mistake, please advise the sender 
> immediately by using the reply facility in your email software. Thank 
> you for your co-operation.
> _______________________________________________
> Govreform mailing list
> Govreform at cabforum.org <mailto:Govreform at cabforum.org>
> https://cabforum.org/mailman/listinfo/govreform
> _______________________________________________
> Govreform mailing list
> Govreform at cabforum.org
> https://cabforum.org/mailman/listinfo/govreform

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://cabforum.org/pipermail/govreform/attachments/20161118/1b6785e2/attachment-0001.html>

More information about the Govreform mailing list