[cabfpub] Post-Ballot 110 Bylaw Issues

[Dean Coclin]

Actually I don't think that's how we concluded. The company in question that began with a "C" did not meet the CA criteria because they did not have a publicly trusted root that issued SSL or code signing certs. Also, they did not meet the definition of browser. But they did manage a root store that had a large "footprint".  So we agreed to admit them as an Interested Party (provided they signed the IPR) until we had a chance to discuss the categories again at the F2F meeting. 

-----Original Message-----
From: public-bounces at cabforum.org [mailto:public-bounces at cabforum.org] On Behalf Of Gervase Markham
Sent: Thursday, February 06, 2014 9:05 AM
To: ben at digicert.com; 'Ryan Sleevi'
Cc: 'CABFPub'
Subject: Re: [cabfpub] Post-Ballot 110 Bylaw Issues

On 24/01/14 23:02, Ben Wilson wrote:
> Thanks, Ryan.  On the browser membership category, those of us who 
> represent CAs may not have a full appreciation of all of the issues.
> Therefore, would someone from the “browser” side of this organization 
> be willing to propose a rework of that membership category and/or 
> alternative categories and voting rules as you suggest?

Just to update this discussion: on the last call, I believe it was agreed that what we really need here is a problem statement. The two companies we explicitly discussed may well already qualify under existing definitions, either as CAs or as browsers.

So, until we have an example of a company who credibly wants to or might want to join, and for whom there is general agreement that the current definition is insufficiently broad, it seems there is nothing to do here.

Feel free to argue with this conclusion :-)

Gerv
_______________________________________________
Public mailing list
Public at cabforum.org
https://cabforum.org/mailman/listinfo/public
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/pkcs7-signature
Size: 6130 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.cabforum.org/pipermail/public/attachments/20140206/d7f520da/attachment-0001.p7s>