[cabf_governance] Ballot 206 and documents

Dimitris Zacharopoulos jimmy at it.auth.gr
Wed Feb 7 10:21:39 MST 2018


Sounds good.

No further comments from me :)


Dimitris.

On 7/2/2018 5:45 μμ, Tim Hollebeek wrote:
>
> Dimitris,
>
>  
>
> We discussed the bootstrapping problem on the governance call
> yesterday.  In the event that there is a need for a new WG and none of
> the appropriate Certificate Consumers are currently members of the
> Forum, the CAs that want that WG simply need to state in the WG
> charter that one or more Certificate Consumers are founding members of
> the WG.  If the WG charter passes, then the Founding Certificate
> Consumers become members of the Forum due to their membership in the
> new WG.  Therefore it was the opinion of those on the call that the
> current Bylaws can handle this situation adequately.
>
>  
>
> -Tim
>
>  
>
> *From:*Dimitris Zacharopoulos [mailto:jimmy at it.auth.gr]
> *Sent:* Wednesday, February 7, 2018 12:05 AM
> *To:* Virginia Fournier <vfournier at apple.com>; Tim Hollebeek
> <tim.hollebeek at digicert.com>; CA/Browser Forum Governance WG List
> <govreform at cabforum.org>
> *Cc:* Dean Coclin <dean.coclin at digicert.com>
> *Subject:* Re: [cabf_governance] Ballot 206 and documents
>
>  
>
> Hi Virginia,
>
> Ben circulated on Jan 23rd a revised Server Certificate WG Charter
> that takes care of the WebTrust - ETSI alignment, so we're good there.
>
> The Bylaws diff that takes care of the WebTrust - ETSI alignment, is
> included in a word attachment I sent yesterday (also correcting a
> wrong reference at the beginning of the document). Please let me know
> if you need anything else.
>
> The only question is if the WG wants to further discuss the "loop"
> problem. With the current language, you can't start a WG without a
> "Certificate Consumer" *as a member*.
>
>
> Dimitris.
>
> On 7/2/2018 12:00 πμ, Virginia Fournier wrote:
>
>     Hi Tim and Dimitris,
>
>      
>
>     Ok, it sounds like we have consensus on what we need to have in
>     the Bylaws and the Server Certificate WG.  Would you please send
>     us an email clearly indicating what needs to be changed?  Please
>     note that redlines don’t come through in this format, so maybe you
>     could provide something like:
>
>      
>
>     In Section 2.x, change “the red fox ran fast” to “the red hen ran
>     away.”
>
>      
>
>     Otherwise, a diff file would be helpful as well.  Thanks!
>
>      
>
>     Thanks very much! 
>
>      
>
>
>
>     Best regards,
>
>      
>
>     Virginia Fournier
>
>     Senior Standards Counsel
>
>      Apple Inc.
>
>     ☏669-227-9595
>
>     ✉︎ vmf at apple.com <mailto:vmf at apple.com>
>
>      
>
>      
>
>      
>
>      
>
>      
>
>     On Feb 6, 2018, at 11:51 AM, Tim Hollebeek via Govreform
>     <govreform at cabforum.org <mailto:govreform at cabforum.org>> wrote:
>
>      
>
>     That sounds right to me.
>
>      
>
>     -Tim
>
>      
>
>     *From:* Dimitris Zacharopoulos [mailto:jimmy at it.auth.gr>     *Sent:* Tuesday, February 6, 2018 12:50 PM
>     *To:* Tim Hollebeek <tim.hollebeek at digicert.com
>     <mailto:tim.hollebeek at digicert.com>>; CA/Browser Forum Governance
>     WG List <govreform at cabforum.org <mailto:govreform at cabforum.org>>;
>     Dean Coclin <dean.coclin at digicert.com
>     <mailto:dean.coclin at digicert.com>>
>     *Subject:* Re: [cabf_governance] Ballot 206 and documents
>
>      
>
>     Certainly for the Server Working Group. But how about the new
>     general Bylaws or a new WG around S/MIME? We've said numerous
>     times that the Baseline Requirements apply only to SSL/TLS
>     Certificates and so do the WebTrust for CAs Baseline + NetSec.
>
>     I recommend adding both. 1 should apply to the new Server
>     Certificate WG and 2 should apply to the new general Bylaws.
>
>     Dimitris.
>
>     On 6/2/2018 9:39 μμ, Tim Hollebeek wrote:
>
>         Ok, I think I get it.
>
>          
>
>         We should either:
>
>          
>
>          1. upgrade the WebTrust requirement to “WebTrust for CAs
>             Baseline and NetSec” in order to align with requiring
>             411-1, or
>          2. downgrade the ETSI requirement to 401 to align with
>             requiring “WebTrust for CAs”.
>
>          
>
>         Is that the right summary?
>
>          
>
>         In this day and age, I think (1) is the right approach.
>
>          
>
>         -Tim
>
>          
>
>         *From:* Dimitris Zacharopoulos [mailto:jimmy at it.auth.gr>         *Sent:* Tuesday, February 6, 2018 12:25 PM
>         *To:* Tim Hollebeek <tim.hollebeek at digicert.com>
>         <mailto:tim.hollebeek at digicert.com>; CA/Browser Forum
>         Governance WG List <govreform at cabforum.org>
>         <mailto:govreform at cabforum.org>; Dean
>         Coclin <dean.coclin at digicert.com>
>         <mailto:dean.coclin at digicert.com>
>         *Subject:* Re: [cabf_governance] Ballot 206 and documents
>
>          
>
>          
>
>         On 6/2/2018 9:17 μμ, Tim Hollebeek wrote:
>
>             For those of us who have historically tried hard not to
>             understand European regulations, but probably should
>             understand them better than we do, is one a superset of
>             the other, and if so, in which direction?  If not, what
>             does the Venn diagram look like?
>
>
>         ETSI EN 319 401 is the first level and 411 (part 1) is built
>         on top of 401. Here is a diagram available from the document
>         ETSI TR 119 400
>         (http://www.etsi.org/deliver/etsi_tr/119400_119499/119400/01.01.01_60/tr_119400v010101p.pdf
>         <https://clicktime.symantec.com/a/1/2rg4jdXEPgpG0cVYXn_7B2jFMYhRbjZ1dDZ93zj7UIU=?d=Q-_kHzd0gf5QWQHtRHrPGfKdJo-f3eGryq7gLFMOP2nmmUSSN0U7d-mlnvjACjvkLYiE5YSQEMOLG71tO_RXchqmCncqIIcrFDtBeLZUAlZrHYS8NABgkLo9xeRneXrt67GFWsXpg4qrHaH2i1WE2nD-PJw6kFVRieKZGqfvwVIHbZc847hmNDYYX1OK-hZ2RJn83ueD16yLldoF5f-b26oVHL9YP3qAYqDB1DBj5oHF-Q438yRy8rGuXF2HtuTqmKwbBBcXk0PC1tLRGSErqip7OX_iU04gunrmBr-tIKOBZoFGECMHVRiWmRxQB1S5rVsr5AWiz9-5775yk-JIHODdvIp7ftjTJD56OOQ9yrXrU-QwbxLq6ktF8tL8RuOpgVEfSg%3D%3D&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.etsi.org%2Fdeliver%2Fetsi_tr%2F119400_119499%2F119400%2F01.01.01_60%2Ftr_119400v010101p.pdf>)
>
>         <image001.png>
>
>         I hope it is clearer now.
>
>         Dimitris.
>
>
>
>
>
>              
>
>             -Tim
>
>              
>
>             *From:* Govreform
>             [mailto:govreform-bounces at cabforum.org] *On Behalf
>             Of *Dimitris Zacharopoulos via Govreform
>             *Sent:* Tuesday, February 6, 2018 12:10 PM
>             *To:* Dean Coclin <dean.coclin at digicert.com>
>             <mailto:dean.coclin at digicert.com>; CA/Browser Forum
>             Governance WG List <govreform at cabforum.org>
>             <mailto:govreform at cabforum.org>
>             *Subject:* Re: [cabf_governance] Ballot 206 and documents
>
>              
>
>              
>
>             On 6/2/2018 9:02 μμ, Dean Coclin wrote:
>
>                 I’m still confused. The requirements from browsers is
>                 411-1.
>
>
>             But the new Bylaws are not only for Browsers :-)
>
>             The Server Certificates WG will require ETSI EN 319 411-1
>             BUT IT SHOULD ALSO require not just WebTrust for CAs but
>             also WebTrust for CAs Baseline and NetSec.
>
>             Dimitris.
>
>
>
>
>
>                  
>
>                 *From:* Dimitris Zacharopoulos [mailto:jimmy at it.auth.gr>                 *Sent:* Tuesday, February 6, 2018 2:01 PM
>                 *To:* Dean Coclin <dean.coclin at digicert.com>
>                 <mailto:dean.coclin at digicert.com>; CA/Browser Forum
>                 Governance WG List <govreform at cabforum.org>
>                 <mailto:govreform at cabforum.org>
>                 *Subject:* Re: [cabf_governance] Ballot 206 and documents
>
>                  
>
>                  
>
>                 On 6/2/2018 8:15 μμ, Dean Coclin wrote:
>
>                     Dimitris,
>
>                     We currently list ETSI 411-1. Why should we change
>                     to 401?
>
>
>                 411-1 covers Baseline Requirements and Network
>                 Security Requirements, which is equal to WebTrust for
>                 CAs Baseline and NetSec.
>                 401 covers similar items as WebTrust for CAs.
>
>                 Dimitris.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>                     Dean
>
>                      
>
>                     *From:* Govreform
>                     [mailto:govreform-bounces at cabforum.org] *On Behalf
>                     Of *Dimitris Zacharopoulos via Govreform
>                     *Sent:* Tuesday, February 6, 2018 12:16 PM
>                     *To:* Virginia Fournier <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:* Re: [cabf_governance] Ballot 206 and
>                     documents
>
>                      
>
>                      
>
>                     On 6/2/2018 6:25 μμ, Virginia Fournier wrote:
>
>                         Hi Dimitris, 
>
>                          
>
>                         Would you please let us know what changes
>                         you’d propose to resolve the issues you’ve
>                         mentioned below?  Your changes weren’t left
>                         out intentionally - we probably just missed
>                         your request. Thanks. 
>
>
>                     Certainly. I have attached a red-lined version of
>                     the proposed changes on the
>                     "CABF-Bylaws-v.1.8_23-Jan-2018.doc" file, to align
>                     the ETSI audit criteria with WebTrust. I also made
>                     a small reference correction to the "Certificate
>                     Consumer" definition. 
>
>                     However, I couldn't provide an easy language fix
>                     for the requirement 2.1 a, and I hope the WG will
>                     be able to discuss on a future call. I will try to
>                     highlight the problem and propose some language to
>                     resolve the loop.
>
>                     Here are the current definitions:
>
>                     _(1) "Certificate Issuer_: The member organization
>                     operates a certification authority that has a
>                     current and successful WebTrust for CAs audit or
>                     ETSI EN 319 401 audit report prepared by a
>                     properly-qualified auditor, is a member of a
>                     Working Group, and that actively issues
>                     certificates to end entities, such certificates
>                     being treated as valid by a Certificate Consumer
>                     Member.  Applicants that are not actively issuing
>                     certificates but otherwise meet membership
>                     criteria may be granted Associate Member status
>                     under Bylaw Sec. 3.1 for a period of time to be
>                     designated by the Forum" 
>
>                     _(2) _"_Root Certificate Issuer_: The member
>                     organization operates a certification authority
>                     that has a current and successful WebTrust for
>                     CAs, or ETSI EN 319 401 audit report prepared by a
>                     properly-qualified auditor, is a member of a
>                     Working Group, and that issues certificates to
>                     subordinate CAs that, in turn, actively issue
>                     certificates to end entities such certificates
>                     being treated as valid by a Certificate Consumer
>                     Member.  Applicants that are not actively issuing
>                     certificates but otherwise meet membership
>                     criteria may be granted Associate Member status
>                     under Bylaw Sec. 3.1 for a period of time to be
>                     designated by the Forum. " 
>
>                     _(3) _"_Certificate Consumer_: The member
>                     organization produces a software product, such as
>                     a browser, intended for use by the general public
>                     for relying upon certificates and is a member of a
>                     Working Group" 
>
>                     First of all, since 2.1 talks about "qualifying
>                     for Forum Membership", which I understand to mean
>                     "Applicants", I propose we replace "member
>                     organization" to "applicant organization". In
>                     order to resolve the loop problem, perhaps the
>                     part of the "Certificate Consumer" definition that
>                     talks about software intended for use by the
>                     general public for relying upon certificates,
>                     should be included in the definitions of (1) and (2). 
>
>                     Here is a suggestion for these definitions:
>
>                     _(1) "Certificate Issuer_: The applicant
>                     organization operates a certification authority
>                     that has a current and successful WebTrust for CAs
>                     audit or ETSI EN 319 401 audit report prepared by
>                     a properly-qualified auditor, is a member of a
>                     Working Group, and that actively issues
>                     certificates to end entities, such certificates
>                     being treated as valid by a software product, such
>                     as a browser, intended for use by the general
>                     public for relying upon certificates. Applicants
>                     that are not actively issuing certificates but
>                     otherwise meet membership criteria may be granted
>                     Associate Member status under Bylaw Sec. 3.1 for a
>                     period of time to be designated by the Forum"
>
>                     _(2) _"_Root Certificate Issuer_: The applicant
>                     organization operates a certification authority
>                     that has a current and successful WebTrust for
>                     CAs, or ETSI EN 319 401 audit report prepared by a
>                     properly-qualified auditor, is a member of a
>                     Working Group, and that issues certificates to
>                     subordinate CAs that, in turn, actively issue
>                     certificates to end entities such certificates
>                     being treated as valid by a software product, such
>                     as a browser, intended for use by the general
>                     public for relying upon certificates. Applicants
>                     that are not actively issuing certificates but
>                     otherwise meet membership criteria may be granted
>                     Associate Member status under Bylaw Sec. 3.1 for a
>                     period of time to be designated by the Forum. "
>
>                     _(3) _"_Certificate Consumer_: The applicant
>                     organization produces a software product, such as
>                     a browser, intended for use by the general public
>                     for relying upon certificates and is a member of a
>                     Working Group"
>
>
>                     Thank you,
>                     Dimitris.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>                          
>
>                         Virginia Fournier
>
>                         Sent from my iPhone 
>
>                         Please excuse iTypos
>
>
>                         On Feb 6, 2018, at 12:14 AM, Dimitris
>                         Zacharopoulos <jimmy at it.auth.gr
>                         <mailto:jimmy at it.auth.gr>> wrote:
>
>
>                             Hello all,
>
>                             I reviewed the diffs and the proposed
>                             alignment between WebTrust and ETSI is not
>                             included in the proposed Bylaws draft
>                             (2.1a). I sent a proposal on Jan 9th
>                             (https://cabforum.org/pipermail/govreform/2018-January/000355.html
>                             <https://clicktime.symantec.com/a/1/xRJEOuXg-y_jlF4bPlvzPYNhn8a6eit8kncIq_wfMZ8=?d=zYU90j46QxTFNxAvlm_vJ4ZGqsTgwmt8yY9zvr0ptokxsxcxPTiHyfv81qHB08VOX3rrzZExOGgmgJkxIPZh2VDCB2-WrHv3HSXYZ8Wzk09rw2zFsyEvlFL13nhb7UzygerGhghF5qQl0uKJbkrgfHeL3_MxqGdnvlA7v_LK1cQLQhJS5vIh8quuXAU7PSSJvzKot7DAJo6bZDIRpzkFwNY2W9QBa2ODpEWTq9Pgug2qPyiezauI14B6fZZzXDwU0Ivj6KGS2Dy_1JXgXrsoUU_njc0WcH8N60MzLhzfYru_KK1QzFyolSRuA_TbFD0QG9P-7dp5mSt1H1BWsQ8OFAuLGgGHPbw9v12-oYSxeZkcV1l_eqlq15pTQI-hUSzH_gt5129IW5k-Txy56XOL79S-5w%3D%3D&u=https%3A%2F%2Fcabforum.org%2Fpipermail%2Fgovreform%2F2018-January%2F000355.html>)
>                             about the Server Certificate Working Group
>                             Charter but the concept is the same for
>                             the Bylaws.
>
>                               * If we include the requirement for
>                                 "WebTrust for CAs" audit, then the
>                                 equivalent ETSI audit should be "*ETSI
>                                 EN 319 401*". This probably fits best
>                                 for the Bylaws.
>                               * If we include the requirement for
>                                 "WebTrust for CAs + WebTrust Baseline
>                                 + NetSec " audit, then the equivalent
>                                 ETSI audit should be "ETSI EN 319
>                                 411-1". This probably fits best for
>                                 the Server Certificate Working Group
>                                 Charter.
>
>                             The old ETSI TS standards should not be
>                             included in the new bylaws.
>
>                             I was also puzzled with the following
>                             requirement in the Bylaws (section 2.1a)
>                             "such certificates being treated as valid
>                             by a Certificate Consumer* **Member*". So,
>                             if a CA issues Certificates for Digital
>                             Signatures which are trusted by Adobe and
>                             Adobe is not a Member of the Forum, then
>                             this CA doesn't meet the requirements. Is
>                             this a correct interpretation?
>
>
>                             Best regards,
>                             Dimitris.
>
>
>                             On 6/2/2018 9:15 πμ, Virginia Fournier via
>                             Govreform wrote:
>
>                                 Hi all,
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>                                 My apologies, I have a conflict for
>                                 tomorrow’s meeting and will not be
>                                 able to attend.  I am sending what I
>                                 hope are virtually final versions of
>                                 the documents.  I am sending diff
>                                 files for the Bylaws and IPR policy,
>                                 as the Word compare function will not
>                                 cooperate. The diffs may be easier to
>                                 read in the end anyway.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>                                 As you may have seen from my email
>                                 earlier today, we have to cut off any
>                                 new issues, content, etc. from being
>                                 added to the ballot so we can finalize
>                                 it.  From this point forward, we need
>                                 to just review what we have, clean up
>                                 typos or any errors in the ballot, and
>                                 move it forward.  With this in mind,
>                                 I’d appreciate it if you’d review the
>                                 documents attached/referenced below to
>                                 see if there are any
>                                 corrections/adjustments that need to
>                                 be made.  We can keep a list of
>                                 additional issues that should be
>                                 addressed for the next ballot.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>                                 What is the status of the Server
>                                 Certificate WG charter?  I sent some
>                                 comments to Dean/Ben - have you had
>                                 a chance to look at those?  We
>                                 need the final version of that
>                                 document also to complete the package.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>                                 I’d like to send the documents out
>                                 early next week and start
>                                 an “informal” discussion period of 7
>                                 days next for any questions people may
>                                 have.  Does anyone see any obstacles
>                                 to doing that?
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>                                 Here’s the diff for the Bylaws (all
>                                 changes since version 1.7 shown).
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>                                 https://draftable.com/compare/JHYFfXWaHGRx
>                                 <https://clicktime.symantec.com/a/1/uyKpIpWVOanrzEuutNyKQlSALyoi3PkQHMormrBAvWs=?d=zYU90j46QxTFNxAvlm_vJ4ZGqsTgwmt8yY9zvr0ptokxsxcxPTiHyfv81qHB08VOX3rrzZExOGgmgJkxIPZh2VDCB2-WrHv3HSXYZ8Wzk09rw2zFsyEvlFL13nhb7UzygerGhghF5qQl0uKJbkrgfHeL3_MxqGdnvlA7v_LK1cQLQhJS5vIh8quuXAU7PSSJvzKot7DAJo6bZDIRpzkFwNY2W9QBa2ODpEWTq9Pgug2qPyiezauI14B6fZZzXDwU0Ivj6KGS2Dy_1JXgXrsoUU_njc0WcH8N60MzLhzfYru_KK1QzFyolSRuA_TbFD0QG9P-7dp5mSt1H1BWsQ8OFAuLGgGHPbw9v12-oYSxeZkcV1l_eqlq15pTQI-hUSzH_gt5129IW5k-Txy56XOL79S-5w%3D%3D&u=https%3A%2F%2Fdraftable.com%2Fcompare%2FJHYFfXWaHGRx>
>
>                                  
>
>                                 Here’s the diff for the IPR Policy
>                                 (all changes since version 1.2 shown:
>
>                                  
>
>                                 https://draftable.com/compare/QuHvYZiCAAUr
>                                 <https://clicktime.symantec.com/a/1/8q3XvGqohjM8pvFAj8n2TNaDAB0so_mrZcspY58oCLE=?d=zYU90j46QxTFNxAvlm_vJ4ZGqsTgwmt8yY9zvr0ptokxsxcxPTiHyfv81qHB08VOX3rrzZExOGgmgJkxIPZh2VDCB2-WrHv3HSXYZ8Wzk09rw2zFsyEvlFL13nhb7UzygerGhghF5qQl0uKJbkrgfHeL3_MxqGdnvlA7v_LK1cQLQhJS5vIh8quuXAU7PSSJvzKot7DAJo6bZDIRpzkFwNY2W9QBa2ODpEWTq9Pgug2qPyiezauI14B6fZZzXDwU0Ivj6KGS2Dy_1JXgXrsoUU_njc0WcH8N60MzLhzfYru_KK1QzFyolSRuA_TbFD0QG9P-7dp5mSt1H1BWsQ8OFAuLGgGHPbw9v12-oYSxeZkcV1l_eqlq15pTQI-hUSzH_gt5129IW5k-Txy56XOL79S-5w%3D%3D&u=https%3A%2F%2Fdraftable.com%2Fcompare%2FQuHvYZiCAAUr>
>
>                                  
>
>                                 =
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>                                 Best regards,
>
>                                  
>
>                                 Virginia Fournier
>
>                                 Senior Standards Counsel
>
>                                  Apple Inc.
>
>                                 ☏ 669-227-9595
>
>                                 ✉︎ vmf at apple.com <mailto:vmf at apple.com>
>
>                                  
>
>                                  
>
>                                  
>
>                                  
>
>                                  
>
>                                 On Dec 21, 2017, at 11:19 AM, Virginia
>                                 Fournier via Govreform
>                                 <govreform at cabforum.org
>                                 <mailto:govreform at cabforum.org>> wrote:
>
>                                  
>
>                                 Hello all, 
>
>                                  
>
>                                 Here are the final documents for
>                                 Ballot 206.  Please confirm that
>                                 you’re ready to go forward with them
>                                 in January after the holidays.  Please
>                                 also let me know if you can open the
>                                 Bylaws diff file.  What is the status
>                                 of the Server Certificate WG’s
>                                 charter?  Thanks for everyone’s hard
>                                 work on this project.
>
>                                  
>
>                                 <CABF_Ballot206_20DEC17.docx> 
>
>                                 <CABF-IPR-Policy-v.1.3_20DEC17_clean.doc> 
>
>                                 <CABF-IPR-Policy-v.1.3_20DEC17_redline.doc> 
>
>                                 <CABF-Bylaws-v.1.8_20DEC17_clean.doc> 
>
>                                 <CABF-Governance Change FAQ_20DEC17.docx> 
>
>                                 <Bylaws DiffNow Comparison Report.htm> 
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>                                 Best regards,
>
>                                  
>
>                                 Virginia Fournier
>
>                                 Senior Standards Counsel
>
>                                  Apple Inc.
>
>                                 ☏ 669-227-9595
>
>                                 ✉︎ vmf at apple.com <mailto:vmf at apple.com>
>
>                                  
>
>                                  
>
>                                  
>
>                                  
>
>                                  
>
>                                 _______________________________________________
>                                 Govreform mailing list
>                                 Govreform at cabforum.org
>                                 <mailto:Govreform at cabforum.org>
>                                 https://cabforum.org/mailman/listinfo/govreform
>                                 <https://clicktime.symantec.com/a/1/8rSOldnBKg8XvPcCi-8xhn3L1EZQhM_E6Wxoe2uL3ps=?d=zYU90j46QxTFNxAvlm_vJ4ZGqsTgwmt8yY9zvr0ptokxsxcxPTiHyfv81qHB08VOX3rrzZExOGgmgJkxIPZh2VDCB2-WrHv3HSXYZ8Wzk09rw2zFsyEvlFL13nhb7UzygerGhghF5qQl0uKJbkrgfHeL3_MxqGdnvlA7v_LK1cQLQhJS5vIh8quuXAU7PSSJvzKot7DAJo6bZDIRpzkFwNY2W9QBa2ODpEWTq9Pgug2qPyiezauI14B6fZZzXDwU0Ivj6KGS2Dy_1JXgXrsoUU_njc0WcH8N60MzLhzfYru_KK1QzFyolSRuA_TbFD0QG9P-7dp5mSt1H1BWsQ8OFAuLGgGHPbw9v12-oYSxeZkcV1l_eqlq15pTQI-hUSzH_gt5129IW5k-Txy56XOL79S-5w%3D%3D&u=https%3A%2F%2Fcabforum.org%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fgovreform>
>
>
>                                 =
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>                                 _______________________________________________
>
>                                 Govreform mailing list
>
>                                 Govreform at cabforum.org
>                                 <mailto:Govreform at cabforum.org>
>
>                                 https://cabforum.org/mailman/listinfo/govreform
>                                 <https://clicktime.symantec.com/a/1/8rSOldnBKg8XvPcCi-8xhn3L1EZQhM_E6Wxoe2uL3ps=?d=zYU90j46QxTFNxAvlm_vJ4ZGqsTgwmt8yY9zvr0ptokxsxcxPTiHyfv81qHB08VOX3rrzZExOGgmgJkxIPZh2VDCB2-WrHv3HSXYZ8Wzk09rw2zFsyEvlFL13nhb7UzygerGhghF5qQl0uKJbkrgfHeL3_MxqGdnvlA7v_LK1cQLQhJS5vIh8quuXAU7PSSJvzKot7DAJo6bZDIRpzkFwNY2W9QBa2ODpEWTq9Pgug2qPyiezauI14B6fZZzXDwU0Ivj6KGS2Dy_1JXgXrsoUU_njc0WcH8N60MzLhzfYru_KK1QzFyolSRuA_TbFD0QG9P-7dp5mSt1H1BWsQ8OFAuLGgGHPbw9v12-oYSxeZkcV1l_eqlq15pTQI-hUSzH_gt5129IW5k-Txy56XOL79S-5w%3D%3D&u=https%3A%2F%2Fcabforum.org%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fgovreform>
>
>                              
>
>                      
>
>                  
>
>              
>
>          
>
>      
>
>     _______________________________________________
>     Govreform mailing list
>     Govreform at cabforum.org <mailto:Govreform at cabforum.org>
>     https://cabforum.org/mailman/listinfo/govreform
>     <https://clicktime.symantec.com/a/1/KWHUJyvbWQ0I0Js0zkSYKfeYYniJWZxjGSDaTOyAlm4=?d=z8uFZACvsDzTuJbEaCp7aXW6SCoYhz-bFvmW6SyYnto0W62uPsrU6ZnBevOd3aa6T4M9jyTYjdJwW4tAR5wtr1esYdlnX32XBMrnTfCpRk2D8ER3v_LBzbnQZfDfmLAibMEgDhmEvEk3mPcoUKkTd9-Bfoew8sg113ZYKtwri90WuU7fWnnNPbtiMBA7N7E8urhD7X5g79vzzPYcbiVtLOYJMGTOZS2jUh5dHgitx3cwDyutUMet4oaW3AOCZeRmBYYbEpZDivtRvTqrirZQzdT65rKkJ83z4hFMxw_MLninJFFRyRR5vbZWrgbtm5aMfxpDGat5N3GP9-ZgkFvA8O9h-pdUG38frjTL5UHuUuZcOizYLhGTdb48WDzXzY9q5oFVNO8%3D&u=https%3A%2F%2Fcabforum.org%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fgovreform>
>
>      
>
>  
>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://cabforum.org/pipermail/govreform/attachments/20180207/8a8dcad1/attachment-0001.html>


More information about the Govreform mailing list