[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