[cabfpub] Ballot 115 - Invited Guest to Meeting 31

Mon Feb 3 21:59:24 UTC 2014

Digicert votes “yes” on Ballot 115.

From: public-bounces at cabforum.org [mailto:public-bounces at cabforum.org] On Behalf Of Moudrick M. Dadashov
Sent: Thursday, January 23, 2014 12:54 PM
To: ben at digicert.com; 'Eddy Nigg (StartCom Ltd.)'; kirk_hall at trendmicro.com
Cc: public at cabforum.org
Subject: Re: [cabfpub] Ballot 115 - Invited Guest to Meeting 31

Ben, maybe Bruce/Entrust won't mind if he is invited as an individual expert? I think this interpretation probably is closer to the real situation, as you said,  Bruce is just Bruce as we know him..

Thanks,

M.D.

Sent from Samsung Mobile

-------- Original message --------
From: Ben Wilson <ben at digicert.com> 
Date: 23/01/2014 19:14 (GMT+01:00) 
To: "'Eddy Nigg (StartCom Ltd.)'" <eddy_nigg at startcom.org>,kirk_hall at trendmicro.com 
Cc: public at cabforum.org 
Subject: Re: [cabfpub] Ballot 115 - Invited Guest to Meeting 31 

I’d be willing to accept that principle.  In response to your earlier email about the Entrust refusal to sign the IPR Agreement, I am hoping that this olive branch will move us past that. 

From: public-bounces at cabforum.org [mailto:public-bounces at cabforum.org] On Behalf Of Eddy Nigg (StartCom Ltd.)
Sent: Thursday, January 23, 2014 10:35 AM
To: kirk_hall at trendmicro.com
Cc: public at cabforum.org
Subject: Re: [cabfpub] Ballot 115 - Invited Guest to Meeting 31

Then you'd be also willing to make similar exceptions based on a similar promise for others? Circumstances and situations may vary, but might be in principal very similar. The forum just should be prepared for it in the future and apply an even treatment.

On 01/23/2014 06:15 PM, From kirk_hall at trendmicro.com: 

Eddy – in my view this is temporary only (one meeting only for Entrust) as I don’t think we will get bylaws changes completed in time. 

From: public-bounces at cabforum.org [mailto:public-bounces at cabforum.org] On Behalf Of Eddy Nigg (StartCom Ltd.)
Sent: Thursday, January 23, 2014 2:38 AM
To: ben at digicert.com
Cc: public at cabforum.org
Subject: Re: [cabfpub] Ballot 115 - Invited Guest to Meeting 31

Ben,

Obviously I have nothing against Entrust, Tim and Bruce rejoin the forum - I actually miss them :-)

BUT....I'm not sure if this is a wise thing to do because Entrust is a certificate authority, a previous member and a member that left the forum due to the IPR policy. Somehow it simply doesn't sound good to me and might be a slippery slope if we introduce such waivers for this or the other requirement the CAB Forum has decided it wants in first place. 

Tomorrow something else could turn up and another CA could be affected and then we are in a problem if Entrust got some preferential today and don't allow it for another one. Just my 0.02 US$ (and I believe Entrust will understand and consider it the right thing too if they'd be a member today).

On 01/23/2014 03:08 AM, From Ben Wilson: 

Pursuant to Section 5.4 of the Bylaws, “other persons” may be invited by the Chair in the Chair’s discretion to participate in a CA/Browser Forum Meeting based on a person’s relevant expertise.  In light of recent discussion and the proposed Ballot 110, which if endorsed will not complete voting until 6 February 2014, I am proposing that we invite Bruce Morton of Entrust as our Invited Guest during the working group and F2F Meeting 31 from 18-20 February 2014 and that we waive the IPR Agreement requirement for purposes of such invitation.  

The basis for this request is that I have known Bruce Morton since 2005 and he was present during the early formation of the CA/Browser Forum during that time and through July 2012 when Entrust had to withdraw from participation in the CA/Browser Forum due to enforcement of the IPR Policy.  Bruce Morton has deployed and managed several public and private PKIs for both government and industry for over 15 years and over the last 8 years, Bruce has managed the governance, compliance and risk management aspects of Entrust's Certificate Services. He has indicated a desire to attend the meetings and that Entrust is planning on executing the IPR Agreement, but that due to logistics of obtaining required corporate/legal approvals to sign the IPR Agreement, he does not anticipate that the IPR Agreement will be submitted in time for Meeting 31 to be held in Mountain View, CA.  

Based on these representations and for other good and valid reasons, I believe that the CA/Browser Forum should waive its requirements to sign the IPR Agreement for Bruce Morton so that he may be invited to and attend the upcoming meetings.  

Regards 

Signer: 

Eddy Nigg, COO/CTO

StartCom Ltd. <http://www.startcom.org> 

XMPP: 

startcom at startcom.org

Blog: 

Join the Revolution! <http://blog.startcom.org> 

Twitter: 

Follow Me <http://twitter.com/eddy_nigg> 

TREND MICRO EMAIL NOTICE
The information contained in this email and any attachments is confidential 
and may be subject to copyright or other intellectual property protection. 
If you are not the intended recipient, you are not authorized to use or 
disclose this information, and we request that you notify us by reply mail or
telephone and delete the original message from your mail system.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.cabforum.org/pipermail/public/attachments/20140203/49f4989f/attachment-0002.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/pkcs7-signature
Size: 5453 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.cabforum.org/pipermail/public/attachments/20140203/49f4989f/attachment.p7s>