[cabfpub] DigiCert Governce Proposal - Version 3

Fri Sep 14 02:15:05 MST 2012

Jeremy,

How should I interpret the following definition in Digicert's proposal?

"Certification Authorities: Any entity that issues digital certificates from a root certificate that is both under the entity's control and included in a Browser's root store."

Logius PKIoverheid is a state-sponsored Root CA. Logius does not control (>50% of the shares) from our CSP CAs that issue end-entity certificates. It seems we cannot abide by this definition and would therefore fall in the category of interested parties?!

The current definition in the BR regarding Certification Authority is: An organization that is responsible for the creation, issuance, revocation, and management of Certificates. The term applies equally to both Roots CAs and Subordinate CAs.

I would propose to adhere to the BR definition.

Many excuses for reacting so late!

Thanks.
Best Regards,

Mark Janssen
Senior Advisor PKIoverheid
........................................................................
Logius
The ministry of the Interior and Kingdom Relations (BZK)
Wilhelmina van Pruisenweg 52 | 2595 AN | The Hague
P.O. Box 96810 | 2509 JE | The Hague
........................................................................
T +31(0) 70 8887 967
F +31(0) 70 8887 882
mark.janssen at logius.nl<mailto:mark.janssen at logius.nl>
http://www.logius.nl/<https://webmail.ictu.nl/exchweb/bin/redir.asp?URL=http://www.logius.nl/>
........................................................................
Service e-government
........................................................................
Please consider the environment - do you really need to print this mail?

Van: public-bounces at cabforum.org [mailto:public-bounces at cabforum.org] Namens Jeremy Rowley
Verzonden: vrijdag 14 september 2012 2:25
Aan: public at cabforum.org
Onderwerp: [cabfpub] DigiCert Governce Proposal - Version 3

Thank you everyone who submitted comments.  We've revised our governance proposal as follows:

1)      Browser Definition.  To permit a better comparison of the two proposals, prevent unintentionally exclusion of any current members, and provide  a streamlined governance reform, we've reverted our definition of Trusted Root Store to the browser definition currently used by the CAB Forum..

2)      Membership Fees.  Although the Forum will set the fees based on actual costs of operation, we've lowered our expected basic membership fee to $500.  We agree with Gerv that the Forum should continue its gentleman's agreement for members to rotate face-to-face hosting responsibilities, meaning the only initial operating costs should be costs associated with creating the organization, the teleconference bridge, and the costs incurred by GoDaddy for providing the email and web services.

3)      Board Fees.  For the same reason, we've lowered the expected board cost to $2000.  To simplify the proposal and prevent the board fee from being less than the membership fee, we've changed the section to make the board fee an additional fee.

4)      Clarification on Initial and Revised Budgets.  We've clarified that the current membership of the Forum will establish the Forum's budget using the standard voting procedure.  After governance reform is complete, the Forum will approve a new budget on an annual basis.

5)      Interested Party Requirements.  Brad Hill made a good point about the number of required votes.  We believe his suggestion of five interested party votes fairly balances the need to hear from a cross-section of interested parties with the concern of unduly restricting interested party participation.

Thanks,

Jeremy

________________________________

Dit bericht kan informatie bevatten die niet voor u is bestemd. Indien u niet de geadresseerde bent of dit bericht abusievelijk aan u is toegezonden, wordt u verzocht dat aan de afzender te melden en het bericht te verwijderen. De Staat aanvaardt geen aansprakelijkheid voor schade, van welke aard ook, die verband houdt met risico's verbonden aan het elektronisch verzenden van berichten.
This message may contain information that is not intended for you. If you are not the addressee or if this message was sent to you by mistake, you are requested to inform the sender and delete the message. The State accepts no liability for damage of any kind resulting from the risks inherent in the electronic transmission of messages. .
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://cabforum.org/pipermail/public/attachments/20120914/588a22b2/attachment.html 