[cabf_governance] Ballot 206

[Dean Coclin]

The charter of the server cert working group would specify the voting rules. There is no intention of changing it from what it is today.

For the Forum level, my proposal would be 1 person, 1 vote. Andrew made an interesting suggestion yesterday on the call but said he needed to flesh it out a bit. Let’s wait to see what he comes back with before we discuss further.

Thanks
Dean

From: Govreform [mailto:govreform-bounces at cabforum.org] On Behalf Of Kirk Hall via Govreform
Sent: Wednesday, October 11, 2017 5:57 PM
To: CA/Browser Forum Governance WG List <govreform at cabforum.org>
Subject: Re: [cabf_governance] Ballot 206

Dean – am I correct that at the (new) SSL Server Cert WG, which will take over the work of the current Forum, the voting rules will be the same as today – 2/3 of CAs, and majority of browsers voting?  If so, I think it would be appropriate to allow different voting rules at the Forum level, as the Forum then will only be working on administrative matters.  What were you going to propose for the voting rules at the (new) Forum level?

From: Govreform [mailto:govreform-bounces at cabforum.org] On Behalf Of Dean Coclin via Govreform
Sent: Wednesday, October 11, 2017 12:53 PM
To: vfournier at apple.com<mailto:vfournier at apple.com>
Cc: CA/Browser Forum Governance WG List <govreform at cabforum.org<mailto:govreform at cabforum.org>>
Subject: [EXTERNAL]Re: [cabf_governance] Ballot 206

We discussed my concern on the voting issue on this week’s call and it’s still an open issue. We decided we needed broader input and discussion since there were only 3 of us on the call.

Basically, the issue arises because we said that all members of working groups would become automatic members at the Forum level. Today, the Forum level consists of CAs and Browsers.

What if, as we expand themes to area like code signing, a company like Oracle decides to join? There are neither a CA or Browser. So where would they fit into the Forum level?

In the past, there was a reason for bifurcated voting rights at the Forum level. But given the new charter and the new potential members, I don’t see how/why that is necessary.

Hope to discuss further on the next call.

Thanks
Dean

From: vfournier at apple.com<mailto:vfournier at apple.com> [mailto:vfournier at apple.com]
Sent: Wednesday, October 4, 2017 2:01 PM
To: Dean Coclin <Dean_Coclin at symantec.com<mailto:Dean_Coclin at symantec.com>>
Cc: CA/Browser Forum Governance WG List <govreform at cabforum.org<mailto:govreform at cabforum.org>>
Subject: Re: [cabf_governance] Ballot 206

Hi Dean and all,

I thought we had discussed and resolved the voting issue a couple of meetings ago.  What is your concern?  Maybe you could provide an example demonstrating how it would play out.

Frankly, I’m not sure where we ended up.  Ben was making some changes to the documents, some of which we don’t agree with, but there wasn’t a means for me to express a difference of opinion until the very end where I got maybe 15 seconds.  Then Gerv came on and completely misstated the points I had made, and then said “while those may be standard positions in the traditional standards industry, we aren’t interested in following those.”  I wasn’t able to really respond or correct Gerv’s misstatements because of the poor call quality.

What do the folks holding up the process — Google, Mozilla, etc. — really want?  Maybe they’re opposed to the whole premise of the the WGs.  Why don’t they participate in the meetings where we can discuss their comments instead of trying to guess what they want?

We need someone who wants to see this ballot proceed to take ownership of it and drive it.  I’m willing to help, but this isn’t important enough to us for me to be spending as much time on it as I am.  I spent several hours preparing all the documents for the F2F meeting, and then didn’t have an opportunity to participate in the discussion.  Again, my question is - who really wants this?

Thanks for listening.


Best regards,

Virginia Fournier
Senior Standards Counsel
 Apple Inc.
☏ 669-227-9595
✉︎ vmf at apple.com<mailto:vmf at apple.com>





On Oct 4, 2017, at 6:56 AM, Dean Coclin <Dean_Coclin at symantec.com<mailto:Dean_Coclin at symantec.com>> wrote:

Hi Virginia,

I also could not hear well on the call and dropped off after about ½ hour. Thank you for championing the work of the committee and working to push it forward!

I think we still have some work to do, unless it was all covered after I dropped off. Perhaps someone could fill me in on how far you got during the F2F?
Did we go through the rest of Gerv’s comments? How about the redlines? If we finished all that, then perhaps we are ready to move forward.

I still have an issue though with the voting at the Forum (plenary) level as I don’t understand why everyone should not have an equal vote, instead of the voting blocks. I can understand how that makes sense for the working groups but it seems to me that doesn’t play well for the Forum level.

Thanks,
Dean

From: Govreform [mailto:govreform-bounces at cabforum.org] On Behalf Of Virginia Fournier via Govreform
Sent: Tuesday, October 3, 2017 1:49 PM
To: CA/Browser Forum Governance WG List <Govreform at cabforum.org<mailto:Govreform at cabforum.org>>
Subject: [cabf_governance] Ballot 206

Hi all,

After the call yesterday (what little I could follow), I was pondering what the problem is with moving this ballot forward.  I realized that there is a lot of resistance, questions, comments, concerns, issues, etc. - but no one is championing the ballot.  I have been working on it in order to help this WG, but this isn’t a critical issue for us.  In general, there has been an incredible lack of interest in the documents - and the interest there has been has been picking holes in the drafts without offering any language to solve the perceived issues.

Whoever wants the WG-based IP structure needs to get behind the ballot and drive it.  Right now, I can’t see who that is, if anyone - but that person is not me.  At one point we talked about the fact that Oracle wouldn’t join CAB Forum because of the IP structure, but is that really relevant now?  I think perhaps we should take a poll to see who supports the idea of WG-based IP commitments.  Depending on the numbers, maybe we should drop this for now.  We could still propose the other changes clarifying definitions, etc.

I know this effort is taking much more of my time than I anticipated, and I’m sure that’s true for others as well.  We shouldn’t put any more effort into this ballot and related documents until we know whether anyone really wants these changes.


Best regards,

Virginia Fournier
Senior Standards Counsel
 Apple Inc.
☏ 669-227-9595
✉︎ vmf at apple.com<mailto:vmf at apple.com>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://cabforum.org/pipermail/govreform/attachments/20171011/f6d6958d/attachment-0001.html>