[cabfpub] Post-Ballot 110 Bylaw Issues

Dean Coclin Dean_Coclin at symantec.com
Thu Feb 6 15:37:18 UTC 2014

Yes, and after the meeting, I informed them that they were admitted as an 
Interested Party but they had to get us the IPR form which will most likely 
take some time given their size. They acknowledged that.

-----Original Message-----
From: Gervase Markham [mailto:gerv at mozilla.org]
Sent: Thursday, February 06, 2014 10:36 AM
To: Dean Coclin; ben at digicert.com; 'Ryan Sleevi'
Cc: 'CABFPub'
Subject: Re: [cabfpub] Post-Ballot 110 Bylaw Issues

On 06/02/14 15:30, Dean Coclin wrote:
> 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.

I thought we thought they did? But no matter. Let's do this:

> 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.

and discuss it F2F.

-------------- 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/c49851e2/attachment-0001.p7s>

More information about the Public mailing list