[cabfpub] Pre-ballot on membership requirement update

[Peter Bowen]

Dean,

One gap in the current Bylaws is that it is not clear that Associate Members can participate in Working Groups and the Public mailing list.  It should probably be clarified that Associate Members have all the privileges of Interested Parties.

Thanks,
Peter

> On Mar 17, 2016, at 11:47 AM, Dean Coclin <Dean_Coclin at symantec.com> wrote:
> 
> You’re talking about BR changes. I’m just looking at Bylaw changes for this ballot.
>  
> From: Doug Beattie [mailto:doug.beattie at globalsign.com <mailto:doug.beattie at globalsign.com>] 
> Sent: Thursday, March 17, 2016 1:46 PM
> To: Stephen Davidson <S.Davidson at quovadisglobal.com <mailto:S.Davidson at quovadisglobal.com>>; kirk_hall at trendmicro.com <mailto:kirk_hall at trendmicro.com>; Dean Coclin <Dean_Coclin at symantec.com <mailto:Dean_Coclin at symantec.com>>; CABFPub <public at cabforum.org <mailto:public at cabforum.org>>
> Subject: RE: Pre-ballot on membership requirement update
>  
> I previously pointed out that “The Age of Certificate Data” section was “inadvertently” moved to be under  “3.3.1 Identification and Authentication for Routine Re-key” when we reformatted the document.  This seems inaccurate.
> 
> Ryan recommended moving it to section 4.2.1, between the paragraphs "Applicant information MUST" and "The CA SHALL develop", which looks to be the right place.  I doubt this would be controversial and is just the movement of one paragraph from one section to another.  Maybe you can consider this change in the next clean-up ballot?
>  
> Doug
>  
>  <> 
> From: public-bounces at cabforum.org <mailto:public-bounces at cabforum.org> [mailto:public-bounces at cabforum.org <mailto:public-bounces at cabforum.org>] On Behalf Of Stephen Davidson
> Sent: Thursday, March 17, 2016 11:42 AM
> To: kirk_hall at trendmicro.com <mailto:kirk_hall at trendmicro.com>; Dean Coclin <Dean_Coclin at symantec.com <mailto:Dean_Coclin at symantec.com>>; CABFPub <public at cabforum.org <mailto:public at cabforum.org>>
> Subject: Re: [cabfpub] Pre-ballot on membership requirement update
>  
> The wildcard clarification is one; and I don’t think it’s controversial.
>  
>  
> From: public-bounces at cabforum.org <mailto:public-bounces at cabforum.org> [mailto:public-bounces at cabforum.org <mailto:public-bounces at cabforum.org>] On Behalf Of kirk_hall at trendmicro.com <mailto:kirk_hall at trendmicro.com>
> Sent: Thursday, March 17, 2016 12:38 PM
> To: Dean Coclin <Dean_Coclin at symantec.com <mailto:Dean_Coclin at symantec.com>>; CABFPub <public at cabforum.org <mailto:public at cabforum.org>>
> Subject: Re: [cabfpub] Pre-ballot on membership requirement update
>  
> Dean, Trend Micro will endorse.  But can we combine with some of the other non-controversial BR changes that have been circulating (I can’t remember what they are) in a “miscellaneous” ballot?
>  
> From: public-bounces at cabforum.org <mailto:public-bounces at cabforum.org> [mailto:public-bounces at cabforum.org <mailto:public-bounces at cabforum.org>] On Behalf Of Dean Coclin
> Sent: Thursday, March 17, 2016 8:29 AM
> To: CABFPub
> Subject: [cabfpub] Pre-ballot on membership requirement update
>  
> I am looking for 2 endorsers for the following:
>  
> Background:
> Section 2.1 (a)(1) says that Issuing CAs “actively issue certificates to Web servers…”
>  
> Section 2.1(b) of the bylaws lists the items needed in a membership application by CAs. 
> But that section does not ask the CA applicant to provide a 3rd party website where the CA/B Forum can validate that they are actively issuing certs to web servers.  We do however ask the applicant this question, after they have submitted their application. It would be helpful to have this in the bylaws so we don’t have to go back and ask every time.
>  
> Specific change:
>  
> Add under 2.1(b) 
> (7) The URL of at least one third party website that is using a certificate from the applicant’s CA which can be examined by Forum members
>  
> Thanks,
> Dean
>  
>  
> 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.
>  
> _______________________________________________
> Public mailing list
> Public at cabforum.org <mailto:Public at cabforum.org>
> https://cabforum.org/mailman/listinfo/public <https://cabforum.org/mailman/listinfo/public>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.cabforum.org/pipermail/public/attachments/20160317/015bf081/attachment-0003.html>