[cabfpub] [EXTERNAL] Membership-related clarifications ballot draft (3)

[Gervase Markham]

Hi Kirk,

Thanks for these comments.

On 03/05/17 01:37, Kirk Hall wrote:
>  1. it fails to pass its membership-qualifying audit;  [SHOULD WE SAY
>     “ANY” MEMBERSHIP-QUALIFYING AUDIT, IN CASE WE ADD TO REQUIREMENTS IN
>     THE FUTURE?]

At the moment, a CA just needs a single membership-qualifying audit. If
we change the language like that, it might suggest that if they have
two, and fail one, then that's a problem, when it's not.

Let's keep this in mind for if ever we change the membership
requirements, rather than trying to account for it now.

>  2. its membership-qualifying audit is rescindedOR WITHDRAWN;  [SAME
>     QUESTION]

Is there a difference between "rescinded" and "withdrawn"? I have no
objection to using both words if it's clearer.

> Any Forum Member who believes one of the above circumstances is true of
> a CA Forum Member may report it on the Public Mail List. The Chair will
> then investigate, including asking the CA for an explanation or
> appropriate documentation. If evidence of continued qualification for
> membership is not forthcoming within FIVE working days,

OK.

> the Chair will
> announce that the member is suspended, such announcement to include the
> clause(s) from the above list under which the suspension has been made. 
> [SHOULD WE GIVE THE CHAIR AUTHORITY TO EXTEND THE DEADLINE FOR REACHING
> A CONCLUSION IN CASE THERE IS DISPUTE AS TO THE ALLEGATIONS THAT A
> MEMBER NO LONGER QUALIFIES?  THREE DAYS IS PRETTY SHORT.]

The membership criteria are clear enough, I think, that proving you
still qualify is pretty easy. "Here's my new audit document." "Here's my
previous audit which is only 14 months old." "Here's Microsoft's root
store, and I'm in it." "Here's a cert in CT that I issued to this public
website 2 days ago."

> A suspended CA Forum Member who believes it has now re-met the
> membership criteria under the relevant clauses shall post evidence to
> the Public Mail List. The Chair will examine the evidence and unsuspend
> the member, or not, by public announcement. A CA Forum Member's
> membership will automatically cease six months after it becomes
> suspended if it has not re-met the membership criteria by that time. 
> [Should we include a dispute resolution process, such as “IF ANY MEMBER
> DISPUTES THE DECISION BY THE CHAIR, THE MATTER WILL BE PUT TO A VOTE OF
> THE MEMBERS WITH CAS AND BROWSERS VOTING AS A SINGLE CLASS.”?]

I thought about that, but really, these circumstances are rare enough
that I thought it would just complicate and lengthen the regulations. If
others feel strongly, we could add it. I would want to add "with the
vote being judged on whether the chair has erred in fact" or similar
language.

> VOTES BY A CA MEMBER PRIOR TO SUSPENSION WILL BE COUNTED AS VALID EVEN
> IF THE CA NO LONGER QUALIFIES TO BE A MEMBER AT THE TIME OF THE VOTE AND
> IS SUBJECT TO POSSIBLE SUSPENSION.

By "the time of the vote", I assume you mean "the time of the count"? I
thought about this situation and thought it was obvious, but we can
certainly clarify for the avoidance of doubt.

Gerv