[cabfpub] Draft Ballot Forum-4 for discussion

Tue Sep 11 18:56:57 UTC 2018

On 11/9/2018 5:57 μμ, Tim Hollebeek wrote:
>
> Thanks for read it.
>
> I’d rather not delay the ballot or make it more complicated.  There 
> are several ballots that would be much easier to handle if the Ballot 
> 216 rules were back in place, and that includes migrating Legacy WGs 
> to subcommittees.
>

Until the new Bylaws are voted, the existing one applies and allows the 
migration of LWGs to subcommittees. However, as we discussed on the last 
call, the rules for creating a new subcommittee under a CWG are exactly 
the same as migrating an LWG to a subcommittee.

> On the subject of obsolete text, there’s actually a ton of it in the 
> BRs as well.  For example, we still have on the books rules about how 
> to handle issuing certificates for Internal Names that contain gTLDs 
> that are under consideration by ICANN.  There’s also a bunch of 
> “Effective Date from many years ago…” that could be simplified.  We 
> still have rules about pre-2010 key sizes.  I was thinking of handling 
> some of that cleanup in the “Minor Cleanups” branch.
>

We do cleanups from time-to-time. The last one I remember was the SHA-1 
deprecation effective dates in the main text. We keep this information 
only in section 1.2.2.

> The issue with numbers that you note could be handled there as well.
>

Sure, editorial changes can be drafted later.

Dimitris.

> -Tim
>
> *From:*Public <public-bounces at cabforum.org> *On Behalf Of *Dimitris 
> Zacharopoulos via Public
> *Sent:* Tuesday, September 11, 2018 7:43 AM
> *To:* public at cabforum.org
> *Subject:* Re: [cabfpub] Draft Ballot Forum-4 for discussion
>
> Thanks Tim, the changes seem to be in order. I have two suggestions.
>
>  1. Legacy WGs: If we delay this ballot for a couple of days and put
>     it for vote after October 3rd, the language around Legacy Working
>     Groups will be obsolete. I think it makes sense to wait a few
>     days, remove section 5.3.4 and language around LWG in section 5.2.
>  2. Consistency with representation of numbers in duration references:
>     Sometimes, we use the text "7 days", sometimes we say "seven days"
>     and sometimes we say "seven (7) days". I recommend changing all
>     references with the format "seven (7) days".
>
>
> Thoughts?
> Dimitris.
>
> On 11/9/2018 4:17 μμ, Tim Hollebeek via Public wrote:
>
>     Reverting to using a draft ballot to get things right on the first
>     try, since I can’t make updates once the discussion starts … if a
>     few eagle-eyed people (Dimitris?  Ryan?) can review this ballot
>     and the attached Bylaw changes, I’d appreciate it so we can get it
>     up for vote quickly.
>
>     Ballot FORUM-4: Fix mistakes made during passage of Governance
>     Reform Ballot 206
>
>     Purpose of Ballot
>
>     The Governance Reform ballot (Ballot 206 under the old ballot
>     numbering scheme) was extremely complicated and took roughly two
>     years to draft.  There were two changes to the Bylaws that the
>     Governance Reform Working Group intended to be included in the
>     Governance Reform ballot that were accidentally not included in
>     the final version of the Bylaws attached to Ballot 206:
>
>      1. The changes to the rules about discussion periods that were
>         approved in Ballot 216.
>      2. Dimitris’ fixes for the numbers of the ETSI standards required
>         for membership, to more closely align with what we require for
>         WebTrust
>
>     The attached version of the Bylaws restores the important
>     discussion period changes that were approved by the members but
>     then accidentally overwritten, and adopts Dimitris’ improvements
>     which were intended by the Governance Reform Working Group to be
>     in Ballot 206 but were accidentally omitted.
>
>     The following motion has been proposed by Tim Hollebeek of
>     DigiCert and endorsed by Wayne Thayer of Mozilla and Moudrick
>     Dadashov of SSC.
>
>     --- MOTION BEGINS ---
>
>     This ballot replaces the “Bylaws of the CA/Browser Forum” version
>     1.9 with version 2.0 of those Bylaws, attached to this ballot.
>
>     --- MOTION ENDS ---
>
>     The procedure for approval of this ballot is as follows:
>
>     Discussion (7 days)
>
>     Start Time: 2018-09-12, 9:00 am Eastern Time
>
>     End Time: 2018-09-19, 9:00 am Eastern Time
>
>     Vote for approval (7 days)
>
>     Start Time: 2018-09-19, 9:00am Eastern Time
>
>     End Time: 2018-09-26, 9:00am Eastern Time
>
>
>
>
>     _______________________________________________
>
>     Public mailing list
>
>     Public at cabforum.org <mailto:Public at cabforum.org>
>
>     https://cabforum.org/mailman/listinfo/public
>     <https://clicktime.symantec.com/a/1/Q9lOWme-Ehm_zStW2eT0hvFnKQ2mGXNClHibn7Yrw5s=?d=DmRY5IUoPqFmPkX5xreQw_HIZ7cqmbMBSXFOYx1Pg5YDIB8982IbD_6IgMTj3LiNJdeBWZHZzOzaeM5Ls_oW2p7OnqCHLW93Uo1OSynXE0qzzTbd2GmvG-AdShqLD6885v0MgjSWxrRn5J08-fk0ezlleK4eyJQEoZHIXv2GgHCBjJaELh2OBcHY3erRC-nu96YqGPBpMUp7_rxut3cn--fOmBM3IQYj4N0IGMEConpMTT5L-S6vSdU0uAkJzZWVHubtyEXpNMjREgBRA0psLwZdoY8TICC30ErOvWs84dOZPMYhtW1cyTF1OWYO4I-fRuSHDa-tKECj_d9nfXkI06ZABR28kPWjv5w_WPf0j4dIvSiuxMadCkGfeLPQ7DEJe2s36yFNXZbI5zynKAyctJ1a&u=https%3A%2F%2Fcabforum.org%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fpublic>
>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.cabforum.org/pipermail/public/attachments/20180911/f8cd55fb/attachment-0003.html>