[cabfpub] DigiCert proposal comments

[Jeremy Rowley]

1. As you mentioned, we realize this is a problem and plan to circulate a slightly revised proposal that includes the updated definition.

2. The fees are not binding.  The fees are subject to a budget prepared by the Board that meets the needs to the CAB Forum.  That will be one of the first steps in the reformation - to determine exactly what fees are necessary to cover the Forum's expected expenses.  We included the numbers as examples only.  The rough budget we have in mind is the current cost of hosting the Forum meetings twice a year, the cost of providing the mailing list, and the cost of providing the teleconference services.  Although these were previously donated (and may continue as donated services after reformation is complete), we thought we'd propose something that covered all of these expenditures in case the Forum decided to do otherwise once interested parties are added as members.

3. That was the intent.  If you note, the entire Forum needs to approve the proposed budget, at least initially.  The plan is to have budgets prepared annually and set the various membership fees accordingly.  I'll clarify any confusion on this issue in the updated proposal.  

Jeremy


-----Original Message-----
From: public-bounces at cabforum.org [mailto:public-bounces at cabforum.org] On Behalf Of Rich Smith
Sent: Thursday, September 13, 2012 9:40 AM
To: 'Gervase Markham'; jeremy.rowley at digicert.com
Cc: 'CABFPub'
Subject: Re: [cabfpub] DigiCert proposal comments

I also have a few comments related to the revised Digicert proposal:

1. In Composition section, definition of Trust Store Operator as written may have the unintended effect of downgrading Google to Interested Party status as I don't think they currently operate their own root store.  Note that (1) I could be wrong in that assumption, and; (2) I've already discussed a proposed fix for this with Jeremy so it should be resolved in his current (as yet unpublished) version.  I include it here for information purposes and so that anyone else who may notice the same thing will know that it is being addressed.

2. Fees:  Are the stated fee amounts in the current version intended to be actual proposed fees and thus binding if this proposal is adopted, or are they intended as place holders?  If the former, does Digicert have a rough Forum budget in mind from which they derived those amounts or were they just chosen arbitrarily?  If the latter, then I would rather see them taken out and replaced with something like "fee to be determined".  If the amounts were derived from a rough Forum budget plan I would like to see that published in support of the specified amounts.

3. I'd like to see a provision added for an interim board to be made up of ALL current Forum members who are eligible to be final board members once they have paid the requisite fee.  The reasons for this are that as per comment #2 above, I'm not sure if actual fees are decided, and if so, the proposal does not set a deadline for payment of the fees and thus a resulting permanent board.  The provisional interim board would allow all current full CA/B Forum members to have board membership while these matters are being attended to.  If the fees in the proposal are place holders the interim board would also be responsible for drafting a rough Forum budget from which to derive and set actual member and board fee amounts.

-- 
Regards,
Rich Smith
Validation Manager
Comodo
http://www.comodo.com
 



> -----Original Message-----
> From: public-bounces at cabforum.org [mailto:public-bounces at cabforum.org]
> On Behalf Of Gervase Markham
> Sent: Thursday, September 13, 2012 9:59 AM
> To: CABFPub
> Subject: [cabfpub] DigiCert proposal comments
> 
> Here are some additional comments on DigiCert's proposal, with the aim
> of refining and clarifying it before the next vote.
> 
> 1.f: "A non-member expert should be announced at the start of any
> meeting in which they are participating to inform Forum member’s of the
> non-member’s involvement."
> 
> Can we have a more light-weight process than this? For example, if
> there is a working group in which a particular non-member is a
> participant, does it not become tedious to remind everyone of the fact
> at start of the 25th and subsequent teleconferences? :-)
> 
> 4.c: How are Working Group chairs appointed? Rationale para 3) suggests
> we are using the "first person to suggest a working group on a
> particular topic" method. Is this the right one?
> 
> 5.b: "Any member may propose modifications to a work product prior to
> the start of a ballot period." Is the Chair also the editor of the
> specification? If not, who decides whether a modification goes in or
> not? Currently, we have /de facto/ editors for our in-progress specs.
> Will that continue?
> 
> 5.d: "Quorum requirements are met if a majority of the active members
> in each membership group participate in a vote." For clarity: does
> abstention count as participation?
> 
> 6.c: There may well be a lot of redundancy in practice between a Forum
> Body vote and a Board vote. Could we allow Board members who are in a
> WG to vote "Yes at both levels" when voting, and save admin hassle? Or
> have an assumption that if a member supports a motion at WG level, they
> will support it at Board level?
> 
> Gerv
> _______________________________________________
> Public mailing list
> Public at cabforum.org
> https://cabforum.org/mailman/listinfo/public