Hi Kirk, I will be participating remotely from CA, with a 3 hour time difference. I plan to call in for a couple of sessions - Governance WG and any discussion of IP. However, I would not be able to participate in any session that starts earlier than 9 am PT, because I have kids to get to school, etc. in the morning.
I suggest that we move the “Review of IPR Procedures” to later in the day. Is this a critical session? What’s on the agenda for discussion at this session? Ditto for the PAG session. If I’m needed for the Governance WG session, I will be able to participate 9 am PT and later. Chris Nalevanko might be in the same position, as he’s in Seattle. Best regards, Virginia Fournier Senior Standards Counsel Apple Inc. ☏ 669-227-9595 ✉︎ [email protected] On Feb 26, 2017, at 3:00 PM, [email protected] wrote: Send Public mailing list submissions to [email protected] To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit https://cabforum.org/mailman/listinfo/public or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to [email protected] You can reach the person managing the list at [email protected] When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific than "Re: Contents of Public digest..." Today's Topics: 1. Re: Draft Agenda for F2F meeting Research Triangle Park, NC - March 21-23 (Kirk Hall) 2. F2F topic - Future Thoughts (Kirk Hall) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Message: 1 Date: Sun, 26 Feb 2017 22:41:02 +0000 From: Kirk Hall <[email protected]> To: CA/Browser Forum Public Discussion List <[email protected]>, Ryan Sleevi <[email protected]> Subject: Re: [cabfpub] Draft Agenda for F2F meeting Research Triangle Park, NC - March 21-23 Message-ID: <[email protected]> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Yes, I should have clarified ? the prior versions of these topics were left as placeholders, to see if anyone wanted to continue the discussion on the topics. I guess I could have been more generic to avoid confusion. Ryan, I?ll try to work in all your suggestions. I will comment on handling of the ?Future Thoughts? topic in a separate email. I will delete the ?Day 2? carry-over topics from the Redmond meeting. I propose to add the following topics for now. If anyone wants additional topics on the Agenda for our next F2F, please let me know. PAG Update CT Days Results / CT issues Network and Certificate System Security Requirements: Challenges, Interpretations [Does anyone want this?] CAA [questions or issues may remain] Pending Ballots From: Public [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Peter Bowen via Public Sent: Sunday, February 26, 2017 1:31 PM To: Ryan Sleevi <[email protected]> Cc: Peter Bowen <[email protected]>; CA/Browser Forum Public Discussion List <[email protected]> Subject: Re: [cabfpub] Draft Agenda for F2F meeting Research Triangle Park, NC - March 21-23 On Feb 26, 2017, at 12:48 PM, Ryan Sleevi <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: On Sun, Feb 26, 2017 at 12:32 PM, Peter Bowen via Public <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: Kirk, It looks like Day 2 is mostly copied from the Redmond F2F agenda. I don?t have an intention of repeating the topics I lead previously unless there are new things to cover. Thanks, Peter Indeed, I was just about to suggest that for several of the other (non-Peter) topics, unless there's something new to cover - and ideally, discussed on the list prior - we shouldn't schedule those items either. I also note that Day 1 limits the discussion of "Future Thoughts" to 45 minutes, although I would suggest and suspect that this is a line of discussion that might easily occupy an hour and a half, if not more, as members work through understanding the various goals of the suggestions, and then try to map out possible paths towards those goals by articulating concerns and constraints that they may have. Based on prior meetings I think we should also expand the trust store (browser) portion of the agenda. If I might, borrowing from an "unconference" like approach, might I suggest that Day 1 gather the "Future Thoughts" as scheduled, and have a (brief) discussion and presentation of those future thoughts (also as scheduled), but we make use of time of Day 2 to actually explore and articulate how to get there. This would allow time for members to socialize and understand the items raised on Day 1, and then come back on Day 2 with a better sense of concerns and directions. I suspect this will allow us a much more productive discussion and figuring out next steps. Yes, I think that this makes sense. Maybe the post-SHA2 stuff can move to a possible topic for future thoughts. I don?t know that we need 45 minutes allocated to just that. Alternatively, we could consider gathering those discussion items now, prior to the meeting. Day 1 can include a summary of the items and themes and allow time for basic clarification, and then we can dedicate several discussion slots on Day 2 to explore those items identified as either controversial or as shared interest, so that we can more rapidly make progress. This might make it more productive then, say, if I were to request several agenda slots for what Google considers as high importance and future direction. Another agenda item I might suggest, and I'm happy to be the 'discussion leader' because of it, is the question about the role and relationship of the Forum. Judging by the reactions to Ballot 185, and from various questions that have come in on the questions@ list which have sparked debate, perhaps it's worth revisiting how different members see the role and scope of the Forum, so that we can better understand each other's objectives and needs. I think this sounds like a good idea, but would expand it to be role of the Forum and role of WebPKI (assuming that the Forum is the venue that defines WebPKI). There also appears to be one or two agenda items previously discussed, but missing. One was a retrospective discussion about the SHA-1 deprecation, with input from various Browsers, to help capture and crystalize the challenges and to examine some of the lessons learned from the SHA-1 exception process. Another was more targeted towards the technical members of the Forum, which is related to workflow management (GitHub, production of PDFs, etc), with the goal of making it less onerous on Ben to manage that. I realize that the Forum has historically conducted a 'single track' meeting schedule, there may be opportunity during the WG day to run that exploration in parallel, if there's space available. My instinct is that there may be sufficient non-overlap in members as the Governance discussions, but as the agenda for Day 2 shapes out, there may be an opportunity there instead. I think we can easily multi-track the WG day. For example maybe run the tools discussion in parallel with some of the policy WG time. Thanks, Peter -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://cabforum.org/pipermail/public/attachments/20170226/1ea3a5a6/attachment-0001.html> ------------------------------ Message: 2 Date: Sun, 26 Feb 2017 23:00:47 +0000 From: Kirk Hall <[email protected]> To: CA/Browser Forum Public Discussion List <[email protected]> Subject: [cabfpub] F2F topic - Future Thoughts Message-ID: <[email protected]> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" We have received several suggestion on how to schedule the Future Thoughts segment of the F2F. First, a recap: * Peter was the person who suggested the "Future Thoughts" agenda item, so I listed him as Moderator. He suggested ideas be submitted anonymously for a freer discussion. * Ryan offered this comment: "However, one minor note, it's unclear how you might propose to capture sufficient information so it's ambiguous as to who suggested it - that is, achieving the property the card introduces, of masking who suggests what." * Gerv suggested this procedure: "I think perhaps this issue can be mitigated by having people know that this process is coming up, and consider the wording of their cards carefully with their colleagues beforehand, with this potential issue in mind. Another option would be to have one trusted person (one of the auditors? :-) who received all the cards at the start of the day with names on, sought any necessary clarifications, and then read them out (without reading the names) in a session near the end of the day." * Eric Mill responded: "I'm happy to perform a neutral third party role and handle cards and get clarifications from individuals without revealing identity, if it's of any help. I think this is a great idea." * Ryan suggested different ways to schedule this, including: "Alternatively, we could consider gathering those discussion items now, prior to the meeting. Day 1 can include a summary of the items and themes and allow time for basic clarification, and then we can dedicate several discussion slots on Day 2 to explore those items identified as either controversial or as shared interest, so that we can more rapidly make progress. This might make it more productive than, say, if I were to request several agenda slots for what Google considers as high importance and future direction." I think that generally makes sense - collect Future Thoughts discussion items in advance (so the Moderator can sort and organize them for better discussion), use a slot on Day 1 to introduce the thoughts and get initial input, and use a slot on Day 2 to do some initial planning if consensus topics emerge from Day 1. QUESTION: Do we really need anonymity for the ideas? In the alternative, would people be willing to just send their thoughts to Peter (as moderator) before the meeting so he can anonymize and combine the suggestions, and create a list and agenda for that part of the program? Maybe Peter could even distribute the list and agenda in advance so people can think about it instead of watching a movie while they fly to Raleigh. So here is a proposed procedure: * Peter develops a full statement of what the "Future Thoughts" segment will be about (so we are all on the same page), and drafts and distributes a related questionnaire so members can submit their "Future Thoughts" to him in advance of the meeting. [Alternative: People can send the completed questionnaires to Eric to anonymize and send to Peter, if that's an issue.] Peter can organize and arrange what he receives. * Day 1: Each item on Peter's List/Agenda is introduced and discussed. [We can also allow the people who suggested an item to explain their thinking first, if we choose not to make anonymous.] Peter can sort through the Day 1 discussion results, and create a prioritized list of items with most support which may be ready for action. * Day 2: Peter leads a discussion of "next steps" for action items from Day 1. Does this work? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://cabforum.org/pipermail/public/attachments/20170226/cc4c6049/attachment.html> ------------------------------ Subject: Digest Footer _______________________________________________ Public mailing list [email protected] https://cabforum.org/mailman/listinfo/public ------------------------------ End of Public Digest, Vol 58, Issue 170 *************************************** _______________________________________________ Public mailing list [email protected] https://cabforum.org/mailman/listinfo/public
