[cabf_governance] Draft email on new Server Certificate Working Group for editing

[Tim Hollebeek]

The "officers in their personal capacity" interpretation was not the
interpretation of the governance reform working group when this was
discussed many, many times during previous discussions of the bootstrap
process.  In fact, it was never even suggested.

 

The forum has members and their representatives.  Unlike organizations like
IETF, the bylaws do not ever consider non-members acting in their personal
capacity, so I find such an interpretation extremely contrived.  The far
more natural interpretation is that a named representative should be
interpreted in terms of the associated member.

 

But it doesn't really matter, because we can avoid the entire problem by
specifying an extremely simple mechanism for declaring participation (e.g.
post to the public list), have everyone declare, and then moving on.  That
should happen TODAY.  If it doesn't, then we do find ourselves in an
unnecessarily complicated situation where its unclear who is a member, and
that would be extremely unfortunate.

 

We need to stop trying to make this so complicated.  We have more important
problems to fix.

 

-Tim

 

From: Ben Wilson 
Sent: Saturday, June 30, 2018 10:48 PM
To: Tim Hollebeek <tim.hollebeek at digicert.com>; CA/Browser Forum Governance
WG List <govreform at cabforum.org>; Kirk Hall <kirk.hall at entrustdatacard.com>
Subject: Re: [cabf_governance] Draft email on new Server Certificate Working
Group for editing

 

That's fine.  We're only making small steps at this point.  Everything will
work itself out over the next few weeks.

  _____  

From: Kirk Hall <Kirk.Hall at entrustdatacard.com
<mailto:Kirk.Hall at entrustdatacard.com> >
Sent: Saturday, June 30, 2018 5:02:18 PM
To: Ben Wilson; Tim Hollebeek; CA/Browser Forum Governance WG List
Subject: RE: [cabf_governance] Draft email on new Server Certificate Working
Group for editing 

 

Ben - small pushback on your analysis.  You say that Entrust and DigiCert
will be the only members of the SCWG - are you basing that on the fact that
I'm named as initial Chair and you are named as initial Vice Chair?  If
that's your analysis - that only makes us officers in our personal capacity.
It does not make our companies members.

 

I think the SCWG membership status of our two companies is the same as that
for all other Forum Members - our companies don't become SCWG Members until
we sign the IPRA and declare intent to participate.  Our status (yours and
mine) as initial officers doesn't give our companies any head start on
membership or participation, in my opinion.

 

From: Ben Wilson [mailto:ben.wilson at digicert.com] 
Sent: Thursday, June 28, 2018 1:20 PM
To: Tim Hollebeek <tim.hollebeek at digicert.com
<mailto:tim.hollebeek at digicert.com> >; Kirk Hall
<Kirk.Hall at entrustdatacard.com <mailto:Kirk.Hall at entrustdatacard.com> >;
CA/Browser Forum Governance WG List <govreform at cabforum.org
<mailto:govreform at cabforum.org> >
Subject: [EXTERNAL]RE: [cabf_governance] Draft email on new Server
Certificate Working Group for editing

 

We need to have Server Certificate Working Group members or DigiCert and
Entrust will be the only CABF members on July 3 .  I think that we need to
send out an email telling people how they become members of the Working
Group.  The Bylaws state, "[they must] have formally declared their
participation in the CWG via the mechanism designated by the Forum prior to
attending."

 

But has the Forum designated the mechanism?

 

I was thinking members should be required to:

 

(1)    email the public list (or alternatively email the WG chair and
vice-chair) and formally declare their participation in the Server
Certificate Working Group;

(2)    subscribe to the mailing list -
https://cabforum.org/mailman/listinfo/servercert-wg; and 

(3)    list their names here
https://cabforum.org/wiki/Server%20Certificate%20Working%20Group as follows:


The following have formally declared their participation in the Server
Certificate Working Group: 


Name 

Date of Declaration 

Date of Withdrawal 


Digicert, Inc. 

28 June 2018 

	

 

Thoughts?  Should I send this to the Management list and then follow up by
sending this to the Public list?

 

Ben

 

 

From: Tim Hollebeek 
Sent: Thursday, June 14, 2018 8:01 AM
To: Kirk Hall <Kirk.Hall at entrustdatacard.com
<mailto:Kirk.Hall at entrustdatacard.com> >; CA/Browser Forum Governance WG
List <govreform at cabforum.org <mailto:govreform at cabforum.org> >; Ben Wilson
<ben.wilson at digicert.com <mailto:ben.wilson at digicert.com> >
Subject: RE: [cabf_governance] Draft email on new Server Certificate Working
Group for editing

 

This is the point I raised at the end of the call.  I think we may need to
wait until July 3 to start transition actions, just so that it is clear that
the new bylaws are in effect.

 

However this does not prevent us from discussing what those actions are in
advance, so that we can proceed rapidly with them at the appropriate time.
This could include having a draft ballot of the election procedures that
could be submitted as SCWG Ballot 1.

 

-Tim

 

I agree that the SCWG itself exists now, and you and I are Vice Chair and
Chair, but we have no enumerated powers to start anything until July 3 - so
maybe we rephrase the message that way, and again do nothing until July 3.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://cabforum.org/pipermail/govreform/attachments/20180702/2ad24301/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/pkcs7-signature
Size: 4940 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://cabforum.org/pipermail/govreform/attachments/20180702/2ad24301/attachment-0001.p7s>