[cabf_governance] ETSI EN 319 401
Dimitris Zacharopoulos
jimmy at it.auth.gr
Tue Jul 24 21:47:45 MST 2018
This language is better than the one I proposed.
Thank you,
Dimitris.
On 24/7/2018 10:45 μμ, Ben Wilson wrote:
>
> As discussed on today’s call, we want to ballot a bylaw fix of issues
> spotted by Dimitris back at the beginning of the year, which were not
> incorporated in the Bylaws by the GovReform WG. As you can see from a
> prior thread below, Dimitris had recommended that we fix the
> cross-reference in section 1.1. That isn’t a problem. However, I
> want to be sure that if we reference ETSI EN 319 401 in the bylaws
> that it would be clear that an audit based on ETSI EN 319 411-1 would
> also be considered sufficient. I’ve rearranged the words and changed
> Dimitris’ language a little to read, “The member organization operates
> a certification authority that has a current and successful audit
> report based on WebTrust for CAs or ETSI EN 319 401 prepared by a
> properly-qualified auditor …” So, I’ve added the phrase “audit report
> based on”.
>
>
>
> Additionally, we could add parenthetical language to say “… ETSI EN
> 319 401 (including the ETSI EN 319 411 series) …”.
>
>
>
> Of note, ETSI EN 319 401 does say, “The present document is aiming to
> meet the general requirements to provide trust and confidence in
> electronic transactions including, amongst others, applicable
> requirements from Regulation (EU) No 910/2014 [i.2] and those from CA
> Browser Forum [i.4].”
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:*Govreform <govreform-bounces at cabforum.org> *On Behalf Of
> *Dimitris Zacharopoulos via Govreform
> *Sent:* Wednesday, February 7, 2018 11:48 AM
> *To:* Virginia Fournier <vfournier at apple.com>; Dean Coclin
> <dean.coclin at digicert.com>
> *Cc:* CA/Browser Forum Governance WG List <govreform at cabforum.org>
> *Subject:* Re: [cabf_governance] Ballot 206 and documents
>
>
>
>
>
> On 7/2/2018 8:32 μμ, Virginia Fournier wrote:
>
> Ok - can I see it please?
>
>
> Sure. The latest file is "CABF-Bylaws-v.1.8_23-Jan-2018.doc".
>
> In Section 1.1, replace "Section 2.1(c) below" with "Section 2.1a(3)
> below".
>
> Under 2.1 (a) (1), replace "ETSI EN 319 411-1 or ETSI TS 102 042 or
> ETSI TS 101 456" with "ETSI EN 319 401"
>
> Under 2.1 (a) (2), replace "ETSI EN 319 411-1 or ETSI TS 102 042 or
> ETSI TS 101 456" with "ETSI EN 319 401"
>
>
> Dimitris.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Best regards,
>
>
>
> Virginia Fournier
>
> Senior Standards Counsel
>
> Apple Inc.
>
> ☏669-227-9595
>
> ✉︎ vmf at apple.com <mailto:vmf at apple.com>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Feb 7, 2018, at 10:29 AM, Dean Coclin <dean.coclin at digicert.com
> <mailto:dean.coclin at digicert.com>> wrote:
>
>
>
> We got it and reviewed on our call this week.
>
> Dean
>
>
>
> *From:* vfournier at apple.com <mailto:vfournier at apple.com>
> [mailto:vfournier at apple.com]
> *Sent:* Wednesday, February 7, 2018 1:20 PM
> *To:* Dimitris Zacharopoulos <jimmy at it.auth.gr
> <mailto:jimmy at it.auth.gr>>
> *Cc:* 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
>
>
>
> Hi Dimitris,
>
>
>
> I did not receive the attachment - for some reason the attachments
> get stripped when I get emails from the CAB Forum lists. Would
> you please paste the changed language into an email and send to me
> directly so I get it? 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 11:05 PM, Dimitris Zacharopoulos
> <jimmy at it.auth.gr <mailto:jimmy at it.auth.gr>> wrote:
>
>
>
> 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/wRFVEyy5Jb5ifKXPV2-CmDZkyBFPIavCjw7nP6mu8mg=?d=-9ZaZu7GDOHJcQ_FipDbw7yXUgKd9S92ESrniApe0Wlr35IGkbz9aNJFPcrQyO9-eS2GtodZoLIqAsmrbEnQ20Q32yjA1O8MkHUsIf1lEcIQRqS4FTVmHiAq3mm2jTo0-ohBe9bAncH6t5ZXryOBMT1o5xXEZCJ8WbXIjqOi6WchW0cxiD6o4iYvTZgQLoQ1gCIba9ejyuWGriI5u7tUzFMSHJ1m60sp7fUr6_nCPGUa3wkdDrmURJ89AnYcfu2DGFTt0RG2BZh_zANfa4t44A8zVuE13MvtOIbKJ0MQw8hltQip5htZFsPggResgP8uHY3dpx6I_D_Xy05dTGNNWkP2HCl6Zarji0GeUcM16yVthEeUbYqcVtIUpnL7RGF8rj6Xo-qv_zEHuzxpOHGRw6XT-A%3D%3D&u=https%3A%2F%2Fcabforum.org%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fgovreform>
>
>
>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://cabforum.org/pipermail/govreform/attachments/20180725/acc86b0c/attachment-0001.html>
More information about the Govreform
mailing list