[cabf_governance] Proposed Bylaws Revision

Tue Sep 11 06:03:29 MST 2018

I just looked and the language from Ballot 205 does appear to be in version 1.9 of the Bylaws.  It appears to me that Ballot 206 is the only one that got omitted from Ballot 216 …

-Tim

From: Govreform <govreform-bounces at cabforum.org> On Behalf Of Ryan Sleevi via Govreform
Sent: Wednesday, September 5, 2018 2:56 AM
To: Virginia Fournier <vfournier at apple.com>; CA/Browser Forum Governance WG List <govreform at cabforum.org>
Subject: Re: [cabf_governance] Proposed Bylaws Revision

Virginia,

The summary of the issue is that the adopted Version 1.8 [1] through Ballot 216 [2], which updated the discussion period process. There had also been Version 1.7, through Ballot 205 [4], which tweaked the language for clarity around membership. When the Forum adopted Version 1.9 [5] through Ballot 206 [6], the approach Apple took is the one Apple is objecting to now - namely, that a version of the Bylaws be adopted in-full. The issue is that Ballot 206's version of the Bylaws (with the Governance Reform changes incorporated), had failed to keep up to date with the Ballots 205 and 216, causing both of those changes to be erased by Ballot 206.

The intent being captured here is to reharmonize the Bylaws by incorporating those previously agreed upon changes and clarifications - which relate to providing flexibility around the discussion period without having to 'burn a ballot' (that is, deliberately let the vote fail so that a new ballot can be started with some changes from the discussion period incorporated), as well as provide harmonization around the audit schemes used for membership, based on the audit scheme's evolution over the past several years since the language was originally added.

You can access the copies of the Red Line at https://cabforum.org/pipermail/govreform/2018-September/000635.html , as the proposed Bylaws 2.0 (attachment-0001.pdf). Beyond those aforementioned changes, there's one small set of changes to align the Bylaws language regarding LWGs to reflect the adoption of Bylaws 1.9 (the GovReform bylaws) and put concrete dates and versions in, rather than language like "six months after adoption of this version," to ensure that this new version doesn't inadvertently extend the LWGs past the intended sunset as adopted in Ballot 206.

Hope that clarifies things, and hopefully it's as boring as this email makes it out to be :)

[1] https://cabforum.org/wp-content/uploads/CA-Browser-Forum-Bylaws-v.-1.8-21-Dec-2017.pdf

[2] https://cabforum.org/2017/12/21/ballot-216-update-discussion-period-process/

[3] https://cabforum.org/wp-content/uploads/CA-Browser-Forum-Bylaws-v.-1.7.pdf

[4] https://cabforum.org/2017/07/06/ballot-205-membership-related-clarifications/

[5] https://cabforum.org/wp-content/uploads/CABF-Bylaws-v.1.9_4APR18.pdf

[6] https://cabforum.org/2018/04/03/ballot-206-amendment-to-ipr-policy-bylaws-re-working-group-formation/

On Wed, Sep 5, 2018 at 1:26 AM Virginia Fournier via Govreform <govreform at cabforum.org <mailto:govreform at cabforum.org> > wrote:

I’m sorry I was not able to attend the meeting today, as I was on a plane.

Apple objects to this approach.  We need to review the proposed changes and understand why they need to be made.  It’s not clear why this is coming up now, and why the changes are necessary.

Also, would you please send me the redline directly?  The attachments always get stripped off of the list emails.  Thanks.

Best regards,

Virginia Fournier

Senior Standards Counsel

 Apple Inc.

☏ 669-227-9595

✉︎ vmf at apple.com <mailto:vmf at apple.com> 

On Sep 4, 2018, at 11:37 PM, Ben Wilson via Govreform <govreform at cabforum.org <mailto:govreform at cabforum.org> > wrote:

Hi All,

On today’s Governance Reform WG call we decided that the best approach would be to do as Kirk suggested and just re-adopt the entire Bylaws with the changes that needed to be made.  Even though the attached redlining may not be based off the “official” version, it does baseline off of the version 1.9 that is on the website.   DigiCert will be proposing adoption of this by Forum ballot.  I think Jos from Cisco agreed to endorse.  We would need one more endorser to move forward with this.

Thanks,

Ben

<CABF-Bylaws-v.2.0-redline-for-ballot.docx><CABF-Bylaws-v.2.0-redline-for-ballot.pdf>_______________________________________________
Govreform mailing list
 <mailto:Govreform at cabforum.org> Govreform at cabforum.org
 <https://cabforum.org/mailman/listinfo/govreform> https://cabforum.org/mailman/listinfo/govreform

_______________________________________________
Govreform mailing list
Govreform at cabforum.org <mailto:Govreform at cabforum.org> 
https://cabforum.org/mailman/listinfo/govreform

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://cabforum.org/pipermail/govreform/attachments/20180911/ec1d592b/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/20180911/ec1d592b/attachment-0001.p7s>