[cabfpub] [EXTERNAL]Re: Ballot 203: Formation of Network Security Working Group

[Peter Bowen]

> On Jun 5, 2017, at 2:09 PM, Ryan Sleevi via Public <public at cabforum.org> wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> On Mon, Jun 5, 2017 at 5:07 PM, Kirk Hall <Kirk.Hall at entrustdatacard.com <mailto:Kirk.Hall at entrustdatacard.com>> wrote:
> In (partial) response to Virginia's concern -- this is an "old style" working group of the whole Forum (to work on an issue), and not a "new style" working group under the Governance WG's definition.  (I think we will call these subcommittees or similar in the future).
> 
> But it's not one consistent with the bylaws, Kirk. That's an extremely important point, and I'm happy to explain further why it's troubling.
>  
> I'd say let's just go forward with Gerv's draft so we can get going -- I doubt there will be any real controversy once the new WG starts its work.  We have actually discussed this a few times.
> 
> The controversy is, regrettably common these days, over the application of the Bylaws, which are of course key for ensuring the protections of our IP policy and our overall level of progress, even if they are inconvenient. 

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).

I agree that it would be concerning if minutes were not kept, other parts of the IPR policy were not followed, or if the subgroup or committee was not subject to the IPR policy.

Thanks,
Peter


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.cabforum.org/pipermail/public/attachments/20170605/877ede62/attachment-0003.html>