[cabfpub] DigiCert Governance Proposal - Version 3

Fri Sep 14 13:56:52 MST 2012

Attached is DigiCert's proposal for governance with the revised definition
of Certification Authority Member (as quoted below).  

From: public-bounces at cabforum.org [mailto:public-bounces at cabforum.org] On
Behalf Of Ben Wilson
Sent: Friday, September 14, 2012 1:47 PM
To: 'Janssen, M.A. (Mark) - Logius'; jeremy.rowley at digicert.com
Cc: public at cabforum.org
Subject: Re: [cabfpub] DigiCert Governce Proposal - Version 3

Before we post a final version of our updated proposal, here is a draft
version / proposed definition of a CA member of the Forum:  

An organization that (either directly or indirectly through an affiliate):
(i) actively issues or actively manages certificates that chain to a root
certificate that a Browser Member provides to the public as a trust anchor,
and (ii) maintains compliance with Section 17 of the Baseline Requirements.
The term applies equally to entities that operate a Root CA, a Subordinate
CA, or both.  

Thoughts?

From: public-bounces at cabforum.org [mailto:public-bounces at cabforum.org] On
Behalf Of Janssen, M.A. (Mark) - Logius
Sent: Friday, September 14, 2012 3:15 AM
To: 'jeremy.rowley at digicert.com'
Cc: public at cabforum.org
Subject: Re: [cabfpub] DigiCert Governce Proposal - Version 3

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
 <mailto:mark.janssen at logius.nl> mark.janssen at logius.nl
 <https://webmail.ictu.nl/exchweb/bin/redir.asp?URL=http://www.logius.nl/>
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/20120914/213d5efe/attachment-0001.html 
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: DigiCert_Governance_Proposal.doc
Type: application/msword
Size: 35840 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://cabforum.org/pipermail/public/attachments/20120914/213d5efe/attachment-0001.doc 