[cabfpub] [EXTERNAL]Re: Ballot 203: Formation of Network Security Working Group
sleevi at google.com
Mon Jun 5 14:41:33 MST 2017
On Mon, Jun 5, 2017 at 5:32 PM, Peter Bowen <pzb at amzn.com> wrote:
> Is there a concern if the meeting is a “subgroup” or “committee” of the
> full Forum and clearly states that such a meeting may not approve minutes
> as Final, process applications to be Members, or deal with items sent to
> the Questions mailing list? This appears to be what is contemplated in
> the bylaws, which refer to subgroups and committees in 5.1(a) and 5.2 (a)
> and (b) and 2.2(g).
To be clear: There is zero objection over meeting during the F2F to discuss
this topic. We are extremely supportive of the continued discussion around
As a one-off, this does not seem to pose any risk, especially since it will
be taking part of the broader Forum Meeting (or, as mentioned as also
possible, the regular Forum Teleconference). That's why there does not seem
to be an urgent need to charter the WG in advance of the F2F, as the means
and process already exists.
To your other points, those are all reasons why Google has raised concerns
over similar proposals for subgroups and committees - the need and desire
for a clear definition of scope and purpose, particularly around
subgroup/committee, since one reading is that they constitute Forum
Meetings or Forum Teleconferences, and thus allow for the approval of
minutes, members, and answers without the broader Forum participation, or,
historically, have failed to include the necessary draft and final agendas
and final minutes. I certainly hope that the Governance WG is contemplating
these matters, as they've been raised in the Forum at large in the past.
The hope is for some form of sensible outcome that is able to meet
everyone's needs, which hopefully be met by the following:
- Agenda Item on the CA/Browser Forum discussing this topic
- Option 1: Have it on the Wed/Thurs with the Forum 'at large'
- Option 2: Simply declare that the Forum Meeting also encompasses
Tuesday (updating the Draft Agenda), that the sole Agenda item shall be
this topic, and that the Chair and Vice-Chair shall not trigger any of the
items related to Forum Meetings that may be triggered in a Forum Meeting
- Charter a WG with an explicit, defined date
- If the WG members feel three years is appropriate, sure, go for three
years. Just pick a hard date, and the only possible conclusion is sooner,
rather than any form of 'automatic' extension, 'novel' voting, strawpolls,
assent votes, etc.
- As the Governance WG works through its proposals, it can always be
rechartered to incorporate them, which might include any of those forms of
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Public