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

Sat Jun 30 16:12:09 MST 2018

To make sure I understand: you are proposing that July 3 is the deadline for signing the IPRA v1.3 agreement, but if a Member or Associate Member doesn’t do that, they keep their membership status another 60 days?

I had thought we agreed that after July 3, a non-signing Member dropped to Associate Member status, and a non-signing Associate Member lost all status.

Can you explain again why we would give another 60 day grace period?

If you are just saying “Give them 60 days to declare their participation”, do we really need that?  If MegaCA is on the first SCWG call on July 12 but has not previously declared, why don’t we just treat their being on the call as their declaration, and add them to the list?  (We can make sure by asking them on the call if they are choosing to participate.)  If they are not on the July 12 call we can say they are not yet participants, but they can declare at any time after that and gain voting, etc. rights immediately.

From: Tim Hollebeek [mailto:tim.hollebeek at digicert.com] 
Sent: Friday, June 29, 2018 3:59 AM
To: Jos Purvis (jopurvis) <jopurvis at cisco.com>; Ben Wilson <ben.wilson at digicert.com>; CA/Browser Forum Governance WG List <govreform at cabforum.org>; Kirk Hall <Kirk.Hall at entrustdatacard.com>
Subject: [EXTERNAL]RE: [cabf_governance] Draft email on new Server Certificate Working Group for editing

You had the same idea I did 😊

I agree we should declare the process has a 60 day grace period for sorting out who is and is not a member, without dropping people.

-Tim

From: Jos Purvis (jopurvis) [mailto:jopurvis at cisco.com] 
Sent: Thursday, June 28, 2018 5:01 PM
To: Ben Wilson <ben.wilson at digicert.com <mailto:ben.wilson at digicert.com> >; CA/Browser Forum Governance WG List <govreform at cabforum.org <mailto:govreform at cabforum.org> >; 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> >
Subject: Re: [cabf_governance] Draft email on new Server Certificate Working Group for editing

Well, that’s the problem, isn’t it? We didn’t really leave ourselves an out on that one: under the current bylaws, everything should swap over on 3 July and they should all be terminated. This isn’t the ideal end-game, though. ☺ I was hoping to pre-emptively declare “yes, there wasn’t a mechanism to do this, now there is, please do so as fast as possible and we’ll be lenient about terminating anything”, but it’s true that that’s not strictly rules-adherent.

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

From: Ben Wilson <ben.wilson at digicert.com <mailto:ben.wilson at digicert.com> >
Date: Thursday, 28 June, 2018 at 14:56 
To: "Jos Purvis (jopurvis)" <jopurvis at cisco.com <mailto:jopurvis at cisco.com> >, CA/BF Governance Reform List <govreform at cabforum.org <mailto:govreform at cabforum.org> >, 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> >
Subject: RE: [cabf_governance] Draft email on new Server Certificate Working Group for editing

In what context do members have 60 days to declare participation in the SCWG?

From: Jos Purvis (jopurvis) <jopurvis at cisco.com <mailto:jopurvis at cisco.com> > 
Sent: Thursday, June 28, 2018 2:47 PM
To: Ben Wilson <ben.wilson at digicert.com <mailto:ben.wilson at digicert.com> >; CA/Browser Forum Governance WG List <govreform at cabforum.org <mailto:govreform at cabforum.org> >; 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> >
Subject: Re: [cabf_governance] Draft email on new Server Certificate Working Group for editing

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 <mailto:jopurvis at cisco.com> )
.:|:.:|:. cisco systems  | Cryptographic Services
PGP: 0xFD802FEE07D19105  | +1 919.991.9114 (desk)

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

(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/20180630/41578f6d/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/pkcs7-signature
Size: 5887 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://cabforum.org/pipermail/govreform/attachments/20180630/41578f6d/attachment-0001.p7s>