[cabfpub] Ballot 110 - Motion to Adopt Version 1.1 of the Bylaws

Ben Wilson ben at digicert.com
Sat Jan 18 02:26:38 UTC 2014


See my responses inline below.




From: public-bounces at cabforum.org [mailto:public-bounces at cabforum.org] On Behalf Of Ryan Sleevi
Sent: Friday, January 17, 2014 5:37 PM
To: Ben Wilson
Subject: Re: [cabfpub] Ballot 110 - Motion to Adopt Version 1.1 of the Bylaws


While I realize it's not at ballot review period, a few thoughts, given the time constraints being operated in:


1) I'd prefer to not change the "Purpose of the Forum" (Section 1.1) at this time.


BTW:  That’s fine.  I just didn’t like the current wording because it was written as if we’d just finished version 1.0 of the EV Guidelines.


2) Section 2.1 ("authenticate digitally signed code") is still a much greater increase of scope of the work of the members. I'd prefer if we could leave that for broader discussion. While I'm aware of the "Code Signing WG" discussions, this change in definitions has the effective quality of allowing/encouraging vendors with no/limited stake in the SSL/TLS ecosystem to vote on changes to the BRs / EVGs, and vice versa. I'm sure you can recognize at it's face, that has some degree of undesirability, and effectively changes the "CA/Browser Forum" to the "CA/ISV Forum"


BTW:  I disagree that we’re calling it the “ISV” forum under the proposed language, but in any event I’m fine with reverting the title to “Browser Member”.  I also thought that the wording was sufficient to limit potential browser concerns, but here is a start on revised language that could make it a little more clear in its restrictions:


(3)       Browser Member: The member organization:

(A) manages a root store AND 

(B) is a major global provider of a hardware or software product that is: 

(i) used by the general public as a browser or computing platform, 

(ii) used to browse the Web securely or authenticate digitally signed code, AND 

(iii) able to verify the digital signatures on certificates used with the product (i.e. by processing the chain to a root certificate managed within the member’s root store). 


However, if browser members still have strong opposition to the proposed wording, or this alternative above, I’d rather delete it from the proposal now than have the ballot fail, but I would hope you could see the importance of it to CAs who must deal with public key stores.


3) Why the removal of the transparency requirements in Section 5.2 for WGs? This is not at all desirable - although the modifications to Section 5.2(c) are.

BTW:  The current language requires that EVERYTHING (even things that are not currently being done, like the creation of agendas and minutes for working groups) be posted to the public list – for some people, the amount of email traffic on the public list is already bad.  Read Section 5.2(e) where “important” working group updates are addressed.  Otherwise, as the responsible executive interpreting the bylaws I will have to start telling everyone that they must prepare agendas and minutes and that all emails and every single interim draft, agenda and all minutes will now need to be posted to the public list, and then we’ll just eliminate the WG lists.  


4) Why are Invited Guests at the sole discretion of Chair/Vice-Chair, whereas Interested Parties go through Forum/WG consent? If anything, Invited Guests represent the greatest "threat" to members, in that they've not executed any IPR Agreement for any of the discussions they are present in.

BTW:  If someone represents such a threat, we just won’t invite them—problem solved.  However, we will likely run into situations where we value the input of someone, or we want their individual expertise, and for one reason or another they cannot sign the agreement in time (because of employment situation, legal advice, or whatever), then we will have to “pass” on having that person attend, and then maybe we’ll miss out on valuable information.  If we invite [fill-in-the-blank] as our “invited guest”, I want to have sufficient discretion on whether to require them to sign the IPR Agreement.  I would hope that attendees would we able to identify when an invited guest is trying to submarine us with some great idea (albeit contained in an undisclosed patent), and hopefully the Chair or Vice Chair, who we elect as our trusted representative will be smart enough to exercise his or her discretion appropriately.   If we do change this, then we’ll need something appropriate to take its place—I’m fine if someone comes up with a simplified voting process that can also accommodate last-minute guest speaker replacements, etc.

Thanks again for your comments.




On Fri, Jan 17, 2014 at 3:49 PM, Ben Wilson <ben at digicert.com> wrote:

I am seeking two endorsers.


On 17 January 2014, Ben Wilson of DigiCert made the following motion, endorsed by _____ of _______ and ______ of __________:

–Motion Begins– 

Be it resolved that the CA / Browser Forum adopts the attached “CA-Browser Forum Bylaws v. 1.1- Draft for Ballot 110” as its Bylaws, effective as of 4 February 2014. 

–Motion Ends– 

The review period for this ballot shall commence at 2100 UTC on 20 January 2014 and will close at 2100 UTC on 27 January 2014. Unless the motion is withdrawn during the review period, the voting period will start immediately thereafter and will close at 2100 UTC on 3 February 2014. 


Votes must be cast by posting an on-list reply to this thread. A vote in favor of the ballot must indicate a clear ‘yes’ in the response. A vote against the ballot must indicate a clear ‘no’ in the response. A vote to abstain must indicate a clear ‘abstain’ in the response. Unclear responses will not be counted. The latest vote received from any representative of a voting member before the close of the voting period will be counted. 


Voting members are listed here: https://cabforum.org/members/. In order for the motion to be adopted, two thirds or more of the votes cast by members in the CA category and more than one half of the votes cast by members in the browser category must be in favor. Quorum is currently six (6) members– at least six members must participate in the ballot, either by voting in favor, voting against, or by abstaining for the vote to be valid. 





Public mailing list
Public at cabforum.org


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.cabforum.org/pipermail/public/attachments/20140117/d5e05025/attachment-0003.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/20140117/d5e05025/attachment-0001.p7s>

More information about the Public mailing list