[cabfpub] FW: Associate member of the CA/B Forum
sleevi at google.com
Mon Apr 11 20:30:52 UTC 2016
On Mon, Apr 11, 2016 at 1:23 PM, kirk_hall at trendmicro.com <
kirk_hall at trendmicro.com> wrote:
> Just to add one more perspective – I have always viewed Associate Members
> as people or groups that CAs and Browsers *wanted* on our calls and
> meetings as providing necessary expertise – starting with WebTrust and ETSI
> representatives. It’s very convenient to have them understand what we are
> doing and provide feedback during meetings and calls. I was not active
> with the Forum when PayPal was added as an Associate Member, and was never
> entirely certain about the reasons for a single company to be an Associate
> As to adding ETA as an Associate Member – I think the Forum would benefit
> by adding *one* financial services group Associate Member who can provide
> rapid responses to our work at meetings and on calls (and serve as a
> conduit of information back to the ETA membership), especially after the
> SHA-1 problems.
Interested Parties can participate as invited guests when topics relevant
to their interests are discussed. If they're not sure when such items will
be discussed, then it would be because we aren't sending out agendas with
advance notice, or they're not paying attention to the agendas and speaking
up about their relevant interest?
> Some Forum members have been very harsh toward those financial services
> companies who didn’t respond in time to the SHA-1 cutoff and are now
> seeking SHA-1 certificates, saying “they should have paid attention”.
> Future Forum changes are likely to have a disproportionate impact on
> financial services companies, so I think one Associate Member makes sense –
> I just want to make sure ETA is the *right* member from that community.
Is there a reason you feel these parties can't participate on the Public
list? Is there added or differential value from that participation?
Given that the list is Public, and both Interested Parties and Associate
Members can participate, this seems an entirely appropriate venue. If there
are items being discussed on our calls or meetings that aren't reflected
completely to the list (as I expressed concern about), isn't that
symptomatic of a broader issue that won't be solved by adding associate
> Perhaps we also could benefit from one Associate Member who can represent
> all the independent hosting and registrar companies out there (not
> associated with a CA or browser). But to keep meetings and calls to
> manageable size, in my opinion we should only add a very limited number of
> Associate Members.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Public