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

[Jos Purvis (jopurvis)]

I think that’s the correct process to declare participation (and I’ve added Cisco to the declaration page as well). It’s a really tight timeline for getting that done, though, so we may need to be more flexible about any membership changes due to lack of declaration for this transition period. Would it be reasonable to state that if IPRAs are not provided by 3 July, a company’s membership will be suspended (they’ve been warned about this one for weeks now), but companies will have 60 days to declare participation in the SCWG and may not submit votes on matters until they have declared their participation? 

 

 

-- 
Jos Purvis (jopurvis at cisco.com)
.:|:.:|:. cisco systems  | Cryptographic Services
PGP: 0xFD802FEE07D19105  | +1 919.991.9114 (desk)

 

 

From: Govreform <govreform-bounces at cabforum.org> on behalf of CA/BF Governance Reform List <govreform at cabforum.org>
Reply-To: Ben Wilson <ben.wilson at digicert.com>, CA/BF Governance Reform List <govreform at cabforum.org>
Date: Thursday, 28 June, 2018 at 14:20 
To: Tim Hollebeek <tim.hollebeek at digicert.com>, Kirk Hall <Kirk.Hall at entrustdatacard.com>, CA/BF Governance Reform List <govreform at cabforum.org>
Subject: 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:

 
email the public list (or alternatively email the WG chair and vice-chair) and formally declare their participation in the Server Certificate Working Group;
subscribe to the mailing list - https://cabforum.org/mailman/listinfo/servercert-wg; and 
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>; CA/Browser Forum Governance WG List <govreform at cabforum.org>; Ben Wilson <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/20180628/a01f8763/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/pkcs7-signature
Size: 2095 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://cabforum.org/pipermail/govreform/attachments/20180628/a01f8763/attachment-0001.p7s>