[cabfpub] Ballot [85] - Governance Reform

Wed Aug 15 22:45:43 UTC 2012

1)      The version posted was prior to an edit I promised to make at the last F2F, which would change the veto threshold from unanimous to 90%.  This would have no practical impact if the CA board was 10 or fewer members, but matter if CAs decided to have 20 board seats or 100.

2)      No rationale.  I suggest that the CA constituency should define its own size and procedures for the board.  9 was a example number, as was the suggestion of reserving some seats for the market share leaders and some for small CAs.

3)      Anyone who wants to contribute to a WG needs to sign the IPR policy, which is scoped at the level of the WG charter.  Since the Board votes up or down without modifying a spec, you could actually be a voting member and even have a board seat without signing an IPR, if you didn't choose to participate in any working groups. (much like the W3C)

4)      I had suggested that CAs should determine their own fee structure, probably using a gradation based on revenue from certificate issuance or the size of part of the organization that does certificate issuance.  The gradated fee structure is simply about providing the necessary support for a professionalized organization, with each member contributing in proportion to its ability or the utility it derives from a well-functioning PKI ecosystem.  In this respect it is much like the W3C, Kantara, OASIS, etc.

The key thing is that, after much feedback that the CAs were unhappy with PayPal's proposed organization of their constituency, or even that we would presume to try, I expect the CAs to propose how to organize it themselves in the refinement period.  The basic structure balances the constituencies among each other, with no more provisos for non-constituency majorities, so it doesn't matter much to the other constituencies what the result is, except that we can arrive at an equitable fee structure that funds the needs of the organization.

-Brad Hill

From: public-bounces at cabforum.org [mailto:public-bounces at cabforum.org] On Behalf Of Dean Coclin
Sent: Wednesday, August 15, 2012 3:27 PM
To: public at cabforum.org
Subject: Re: [cabfpub] Ballot [85] - Governance Reform

I have several questions for the authors of the various proposals. I think the answers would be of interest to the general CAB Forum:

Paypal:

1.       If I understand your proposal correctly, there are 3 groups at the Board level and ratification requires a 2/3 vote of the constituencies. But the third group can veto the vote if all members of that group are unanimous, is that correct? So for example, if CAs and Trust store operators vote on something but all members of the User group unanimously vote against it, it doesn't pass?

2.       What is the rationale for the number "9" for the CA group? How was this number arrived at?

3.       It's not clear whether everyone has to sign up to an IPR policy or just those in the working groups?

4.       This proposal seems to be biased against larger companies in terms of the fee structure.  Can you comment on that? Also, is the fee based on the number of people in the overall company or just the division that deals with SSL/PKI?

Trend:

1.       This looks like essentially what we have now but with the addition of moderated working groups in which the moderator makes a recommendation after synthesizing the "voice" of the work group and then brings it to a vote of the forum. The forum voting rules are the same as today. Is this a correct characterization?

That's it for now, more to come as I keep diving into them.

Thanks,

Dean Coclin
Symantec

From: public-bounces at cabforum.org<mailto:public-bounces at cabforum.org> [mailto:public-bounces at cabforum.org]<mailto:[mailto:public-bounces at cabforum.org]> On Behalf Of Ben Wilson
Sent: Friday, August 10, 2012 11:36 AM
To: public at cabforum.org<mailto:public at cabforum.org>
Subject: [cabfpub] Ballot [85] - Governance Reform

Forwarded to the Public List ===

Tom Albertson made the following motion and Bill Madell and Jeremy Rowley endorsed it:

Pursuant to a motion made and approved at the face-to-face meeting of Forum members in Gjovik Norway, the CAB Forum has posted the four (4) governance proposals to http://www.cabforum.org, and indicated that one of these governance proposals, or a "no change" proposal, should be adopted by the Forum, by the following voting process:

a.       A seven (7) day review period, followed by

b.       A seven (7) day voting period, during which an instant run-off ballot is conducted to eliminate all but two of the proposals..

1.       The instant run off ballot is among the following proposals (listed in alphabetical order):
DigiCert<http://www.cabforum.org/governance/DigiCert_Governance_Proposal.pdf> Proposal
Microsoft<http://www.cabforum.org/governance/Microsoft_Governance_Proposal.pdf> Proposal

No Change Proposal
PayPal<http://www.cabforum.org/governance/PayPal_Governance_Proposal.pdf> Proposal
Trend Micro<http://www.cabforum.org/governance/Trend_Micro_Governance_Proposal.pdf> Proposal

Note: The instant run-off ballot shall be conducted as follows.

Where there are '5' initial proposals, each voting member may assign the numbers 1 to 5 to the proposals in order of preference (1 indicating their most preferred choice).  Each member who votes shall (at least) assign the number '1', and may assign further numbers up to and including '5'.

Votes ranked '1' shall be counted and the proposal with the fewest votes shall be eliminated.  The votes of the corresponding members shall be reassigned to the proposal ranked '2' by those members.  Where a member has not identified a proposal with rank '2', his or her vote shall not be reassigned.

This procedure shall be repeated, counting reassigned votes, until just two proposals remain.

2.       Votes will be tallied and the two remaining proposals receiving first and second status from the run-off ballot process shall proceed to the final ballot.

3.       A two week period will occur during which the authors of the two remaining proposals on the final ballot may modify their proposals while keeping to the spirit of the proposal that he or she posted to http://www.cabforum.org.

4.       A final ballot will be offered to select between the two remaining proposals, by the following voting process:

a.       A seven (7) day review period, followed by

b.       A seven (7) day voting period.

5.       Votes will be tallied and the proposal receiving a simple majority of votes in favor will be deemed the governance policy that the Forum will pursue.

6.       A period of undefined duration during which the author of the successful proposal shall refine the proposal in order to ensure its completeness, while keeping within the spirit of the proposal that he or she posted to http://www.cabforum.org.

7.       A ratification ballot conducted in accordance with established Forum procedures to ratify the proposal that emerged from step 5 (above).

--MOTION BEGINS--

The members shall conduct an instant run-off ballot as described above. Votes will be tallied, and members shall conduct a final ballot between the two proposals with first and second status.  Once a governance policy is selected, it will be further refined and put before the membership in the form of a ratification ballot.

This ballot review period comes into effect at 2100 UTC on 10 August 2012 and will close at 2100 UTC on 17 August 2012. Unless the motion is withdrawn during the review period, the entire voting period for 3 ballots will proceed as follows:

7 day review period for this motion, closing on 17 August 2012

7 day voting period, closing on 24 August 2012

14 day period for modification of two final proposals, closing on 7 September 2012

7 day review period for two final proposals, closing on 14 September 2012

7 day voting period, closing on 21 September 2012

A period of undefined duration for refinement of the final proposal

7 day review period, closing on date TBD

7 day voting period, closing on date TBD

Votes must be cast by posting an on-list reply to this thread.

--MOTION ENDS--

For the instant run-off ballot, votes for preferred proposals must clearly indicate a number 1  for the most preferred choice, and optionally 2 for the second most preferred, and so on (see above "Note" for details).

For the final ballot, voters will choose a preferred option between two proposals, with the winner receiving a simple majority of votes.   Votes must indicate a clear "Yes" in the response for their preferred option. Since the final ballot is for the preferred option no "no" response should be given, only a "yes" or "abstain.", A vote to abstain must indicate a clear "abstain" in the response.  Unclear responses will not be counted. The latest vote received from any representative of a voting member before the close of the voting period will be counted.

For the ratification ballot, votes will be tallied in accordance with established Forum procedures.

Voting members are listed here:

http://www.cabforum.org/forum.html
In order for the ratification ballot conducted in step (7) above to be adopted, as the Forum is currently constituted, two thirds or more of the votes cast by members in the CA category and one half or more of the votes cast by members in the browser

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.cabforum.org/pipermail/public/attachments/20120815/f841aa4c/attachment-0004.html>