Thanks Virginia. I could support that interpretation. If an entity is not subscribed to the mailing list then they did “send” the vote, but didn’t “submit” it.
From: Public [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Virginia Fournier via Public Sent: Tuesday, April 18, 2017 3:13 PM To: CA/Browser Forum Public Discussion List <[email protected]> Cc: Virginia Fournier <[email protected]> Subject: [cabfpub] Ballot 194 Hello all, Many members have made good points on this conundrum. My personal view (and not Apple’s corporate position) is as follows: Section 2.3 of the Bylaws pertains to Requirements for Draft Guideline Ballots. This section states: "(c) As described in Section 2.2(d), upon completion of such discussion period, Members shall have exactly seven calendar days to vote on a Draft Guideline Ballot, with the deadline clearly communicated in the ballot sent via the Public Mail List. All voting will take place via the Public Mail List. Votes not submitted to the Public Mail List will not be considered valid, and will not be counted for any purpose. The Chair may send an email to the Public Mail List reminding Members of when the voting period opens and closes.” Microsoft’s vote was not submitted to the Public List, because the person who submitted the vote was not subscribed to the Public List. Had Microsoft’s vote been submitted to the Public List, everyone on that list would have received it. Unfortunately, intent doesn’t matter here, although many of us may wish that it did. But if we allowed intent to overrule the Bylaws, we would find ourselves in very muddy waters. This is a precedent that we don’t want to set. Unfortunately, this means we cannot count Microsoft’s vote, and the ballot fails. The proposer and endorsers should resubmit the ballot (with a new number, as someone suggested), and the process will need to be repeated. I’m happy to discuss with anyone who would like to have a logical, rational discussion about this issue. Thanks. Best regards, Virginia Fournier Senior Standards Counsel Apple Inc. ☏ 669-227-9595 ✉︎ [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> Begin forwarded message: From: [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> Subject: Public Digest, Vol 60, Issue 154 Date: April 18, 2017 at 8:20:43 AM PDT To: [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> Reply-To: [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> Send Public mailing list submissions to [email protected] <mailto:[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] <mailto:[email protected]> You can reach the person managing the list at [email protected] <mailto:[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: Notice of Review Period - Ballot 194 - Effective Date of Ballot 193 Provisions ([email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> ) 2. Re: Notice of Review Period - Ballot 194 - Effective Date of Ballot 193 Provisions (Ryan Sleevi) 3. Re: ]RE: Ballot 194 - Effective Date of Ballot 193 Provisions is in the VOTING period (ends April 16) (Ryan Sleevi) 4. Re: [EXTERNAL]Re: ]RE: Ballot 194 - Effective Date of Ballot 193 Provisions is in the VOTING period (ends April 16) ([email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> ) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Message: 1 Date: Tue, 18 Apr 2017 10:52:34 -0400 From: "[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> " <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> > To: Ryan Sleevi <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> > Cc: CA/Browser Forum Public Discussion List <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> > Subject: Re: [cabfpub] Notice of Review Period - Ballot 194 - Effective Date of Ballot 193 Provisions Message-ID: <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" On Apr 18, 2017, at 10:33 AM, Ryan Sleevi <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> > wrote: On Tue, Apr 18, 2017 at 10:28 AM, [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> <mailto:[email protected]> <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]%20%3cmailto:[email protected]> <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: Actually, I had just expressed support that it was. That's great, but it's not a popularity contest, and you've failed to meaningfully offer any justification for how this has followed the Bylaws. I stand by the statement: This is not a valid vote and not a valid Review Notice. Your mode of argument is really unhelpful. The fact that you don?t agree with a proposition you are arguing against does not mean that your opponent has failed to 'meaningfully offer any justification?. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://cabforum.org/pipermail/public/attachments/20170418/857cee2e/attachment-0001.html> ------------------------------ Message: 2 Date: Tue, 18 Apr 2017 10:58:52 -0400 From: Ryan Sleevi <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> > To: "[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> " <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> > Cc: "CA/Browser Forum Public Discussion List" <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> > Subject: Re: [cabfpub] Notice of Review Period - Ballot 194 - Effective Date of Ballot 193 Provisions Message-ID: <CACvaWvanh7FMyXpbAWwj46ea3T6aseDf=vwuntkrzdtrib5...@mail.gmail.com <mailto:CACvaWvanh7FMyXpbAWwj46ea3T6aseDf=vwuntkrzdtrib5...@mail.gmail.com> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" On Tue, Apr 18, 2017 at 10:52 AM, [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> > wrote: Your mode of argument is really unhelpful. Because I'm asking that you support your arguments with data from the Bylaws, and to refute the (many) points of demonstrable consistency within the Bylaws that disagree with the interpretation Kirk and you are proposing? How else is there to be a meaningful argument? This isn't a question of opinion or interpretation. It's quite clear cut. Those arguing that it's not clear-cut are only doing so by selectively ignoring all other evidence that contradicts their viewpoint. There has been no response to the many places in which our existing Bylaws give clarity and disambiguate the position here - that it was not posted to the mailing list, that voting did not occur via the mailing list. We can continue on the other thread, but I think that if you wish to advance the position you're taking, both you and Kirk owe it to folks to make a meaningful response to the concerns. If you or Kirk find it difficult to participate in the broader threads, I would be happy to summarize for you all of the ways in which the interpretation is unambiguously not valid, according to our existing Bylaws. The fact that you don?t agree with a proposition you are arguing against does not mean that your opponent has failed to 'meaningfully offer any justification?. I agree. And while that's a useful strawman to poke at, that's not my point, and somewhat disingenous to suggest it is. Multiple people have pointed out within our Bylaws that this interpretation lacks substance. The only arguments, to date, have been by selectively taking a single sentence, ignoring both its surrounding paragraph and the document at large's usage of that word, or to argue on the basis of intent, despite there being a clear and plain reading, also supported by the historic data, that the intent was not as has been suggested. The fact that you agree with a proposition that failed does not mean it's appropriate to redefine the rules of voting in a way that clearly contradict with our Bylaws, nor to introduce a new method of dispute resolution (the doodle poll), which entirely disregards our Bylaws and our precedent, but favors the Chair's (and his employer's) position. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://cabforum.org/pipermail/public/attachments/20170418/eb9128d0/attachment-0001.html> ------------------------------ Message: 3 Date: Tue, 18 Apr 2017 11:03:02 -0400 From: Ryan Sleevi <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> > To: "[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> " <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> > Cc: "CA/Browser Forum Public Discussion List" <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> > Subject: Re: [cabfpub] ]RE: Ballot 194 - Effective Date of Ballot 193 Provisions is in the VOTING period (ends April 16) Message-ID: <cacvawva7wfcyrhn4cmgnagb58p2hug6zt4ypmeytcgw_+m1...@mail.gmail.com <mailto:cacvawva7wfcyrhn4cmgnagb58p2hug6zt4ypmeytcgw_+m1...@mail.gmail.com> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" On Tue, Apr 18, 2017 at 10:43 AM, [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> > wrote: I try to leave questions of law to lawyers precisely because the law is not computer algorithm. It is not the bylaws at issue here, it is the interpretation of the bylaws, and that is not the same thing at all. Unfortunately, you're moving the goalposts on this debate in a way that favor you. You have failed to meaningfully address any of the numerous points that show such an interpretation is neither valid nor consistent with the Bylaws. Would you like to engage in this debate, or will you simply see who can talk louder? Given who we are, if we want to create a completely automated etc voting system then we should design a protocol and write some code. The current situation providing a use case illustrating the need for parties to be able to verify their vote and know it will be counted. Given that we instead chose to use a listserve, the protocol equivalent of duct tape, I think we should expect to have to allow for machine error, user error and combinations thereof. That's great that you think that. We did not, however, and thus need to live with it. Just like we did with Ballot 77. Really, is this what you want to make your last stand on? This is extremely insulting. You are attempting to ignore our Bylaws and our process, ignore the IP protections for it, in order to favour an interpretation that is wholly unsupported. If you're suggesting that the CA/Browser Forum should be "ruled" by Chair fiat, then yes, it's clear that it would be unacceptable for us to particpate further in this Forum. Our ability to make meaningful contributions is based on the consistent application of our Bylaws and our IP process. The fact that this is now the second time in which the new Chair has failed to do so is an unacceptable way of continuing to do business. I can appreciate that the original matter was one of well-meaning, though incorrect, intent. The fact that it has continued, with other postings on other Ballots, and with no further engagement, makes it increasingly difficult to believe this is anything but. If there were a matter of simply not having the time to fulfill his duties as Chair, we have an excellent position of Vice-Chair that is able to do so, and given the potential IP issues, it's owed to the Forum to make that effort. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://cabforum.org/pipermail/public/attachments/20170418/90bfd3c9/attachment-0001.html> ------------------------------ Message: 4 Date: Tue, 18 Apr 2017 11:20:26 -0400 From: "[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> " <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> > To: CA/Browser Forum Public Discussion List <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> > Subject: Re: [cabfpub] [EXTERNAL]Re: ]RE: Ballot 194 - Effective Date of Ballot 193 Provisions is in the VOTING period (ends April 16) Message-ID: <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" 'Votes not submitted to the Public Mail...? If we are going to be hyper pedantic about this, nobody disputes that the vote was submitted to the Public Mail list. It is therefore a valid vote. I note that in making the claims to the contrary, people have 1) Stated that Microsoft?s intent in casting the ballot does not matter. 2) The intent to which the rule is meant to serve does. Well if intent should be accepted for one or neither. If we are to be hyper pedantic, let us consider the precise meaning of RFC 5821, section 3.3 in which the process of submitting a message is described. Did Microsoft execute a MAIL command? Did Microsoft execute a RCPT command? Did Microsoft execute a DATA command? The answer to these is yes and thus Microsoft completed all the necessary steps for submission of the vote. The failure to forward the vote to the list subscribers was due entirely to the configuration of the mail system, a factor over which Microsoft had not control. Thus, according to the bylaws, the vote is valid and shall be counted. On Apr 16, 2017, at 9:40 PM, Kirk Hall via Public <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> > wrote: Eric, look again at the rule: *** All voting will take place via the Public Mail List. Votes not submitted to the Public Mail List will not be considered valid, and will not be counted for any purpose. In this case, Microsoft?s vote did take place ?via the Public Mail List?. It?s vote was submitted ?to the Public Mail List?. To be hyper technical, the Bylaw does not say the vote must APPEAR on the list during the voting period (just that the vote must occur), and any number of things can prevent a message to the Public list from being forwarded ? I have had my messages trapped or even disappear before. I think it?s unfortunate that we are parsing the Bylaws so closely as this ? this has always been an informal organization, and getting hung up on interpretations is a waste of time. In any case this seems pretty silly, as a repeat vote, with the same retroactive clause, would end up with the same result. From: Eric Mill [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Sunday, April 16, 2017 6:17 PM To: CA/Browser Forum Public Discussion List <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> > Cc: Kirk Hall <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> > Subject: [EXTERNAL]Re: [cabfpub] ]RE: Ballot 194 - Effective Date of Ballot 193 Provisions is in the VOTING period (ends April 16) I don't think Microsoft cast its vote correctly. Microsoft is aware of how the CA/Browser Forum list works, and should have been able to cast a vote from a subscribed member address before the deadline. I think this obligation is especially apparent when their vote is likely to be a tiebreaker. Peter's right that there's some greyness to the Bylaws, but I think a plain reading of the text, and its clear intent to have votes be cast where it is publicly attributable to the voter, supports this vote not being validly cast. I'm sure it was a good faith error, but it would not be a good precedent for votes to be counted which were only distributed to and reforwarded by the Chair (or any other member). Unfortunately, since 1 browser vote is the difference between success and failure, this probably points to needing a revote. -- Eric On Sun, Apr 16, 2017 at 9:07 PM, Kirk Hall via Public <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]%20%3cmailto:[email protected]> <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: Ryan, it?s kind of unseemly for one browser to try to block the vote of another browser. Google were the only Forum member to vote no on this ballot ? 20 CAs and 2 browsers voted yes. Clearly the consensus of the members is in favor of this ballot, and technically Microsoft cast its vote correctly, even if it was not forwarded by our server. I would suggest you reconsider following this line. From: Public [mailto:[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]%20%3cmailto:[email protected]%3e> <mailto:[email protected]>] On Behalf Of Ryan Sleevi via Public Sent: Sunday, April 16, 2017 6:03 PM To: CA/Browser Forum Public Discussion List <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]%20%3cmailto:[email protected]> <mailto:[email protected]>> Cc: Ryan Sleevi <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]%20%3cmailto:[email protected]> <mailto:[email protected]>> Subject: [EXTERNAL]Re: [cabfpub] ]RE: Ballot 194 - Effective Date of Ballot 193 Provisions is in the VOTING period (ends April 16) To that end, this was a concern raised nearly a year ago when discussing what would become Ballot 174, with respect to Section 9.16.3 https://cabforum.org/pipermail/public/2016-April/007468.html <https://cabforum.org/pipermail/public/2016-April/007468.html> and https://cabforum.org/pipermail/public/2016-April/007480.html <https://cabforum.org/pipermail/public/2016-April/007480.html> There is certainly precedent within the Forum that "posted" shall mean available for access via the archives, as that can be objectively measured and quantified. I do not believe we can reasonably argue that "posted" shall mean sent to this address. It cannot be shown, for example, that Microsoft did not block the posting on their end, thereby preventing proper disclosure by preventing egress from their network. This is also not the first time in which the Chair has been the only recipient of a message, and which the interpretation has resulted in some concern. I will note Symantec's previous exclusions, posted only to Dean (in his role as the previous chair), created uncertainty and ambiguity with respect to whether they abided by the Bylaws. I would encourage you, for the avoidance of doubt and conflict, to reconsider your position, as I do not believe it is supported by the precedent, intent, or bylaws of the Forum. On Sun, Apr 16, 2017 at 8:57 PM, Peter Bowen via Public <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]%20%3cmailto:[email protected]> <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: Kirk, I suspect that the mailing list system rejected this email as Gordon is not subscribed to the public mailing list. The bylaws say: "Votes not submitted to the Public Mail List will not be considered valid, and will not be counted for any purpose.? The bylaws do not appear to contemplate what happens if the vote is _submitted_ to the mailing list but not accepted. In this case it was copied to the chair, so you alone saw it. If Gordon had not explicitly copied you, then it would not have been counted. As you were explicitly copied, you received it. Given that the bylaws say "All voting will take place via the Public Mail List?, and the mailing list archives allow verification of whether the email was posted, I am leaning towards the view that this is not a valid vote. However I can see how it is a grey area. Thanks, Peter On Apr 16, 2017, at 5:36 PM, Kirk Hall via Public <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]%20%3cmailto:[email protected]> <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: This is the vote from Microsoft. From: Gordon Bock [mailto:[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]%20%3cmailto:[email protected]%3e> <mailto:[email protected]>] Sent: Thursday, April 13, 2017 8:46 AM To: Kirk Hall <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]%20%3cmailto:[email protected]> <mailto:[email protected]>>; CA/Browser Forum Public Discussion List <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]%20%3cmailto:[email protected]> <mailto:[email protected]>> Subject: RE: Ballot 194 - Effective Date of Ballot 193 Provisions is in the VOTING period (ends April 16) Microsoft votes ?Yes?. Thanks, -Gordon ? <> From: Kirk Hall [mailto:[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]%20%3cmailto:[email protected]%3e> <mailto:[email protected]>] Sent: Sunday, April 9, 2017 4:30 PM To: CA/Browser Forum Public Discussion List <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]%20%3cmailto:[email protected]> <mailto:[email protected]>> Subject: Ballot 194 - Effective Date of Ballot 193 Provisions is in the VOTING period (ends April 16) Reminder: Ballot 194 - Effective Date of Ballot 193 Provisions is in the voting period (ends April 16) Ballot 194 ? Effective Date of Ballot 193 Provisions Purpose of Ballot: Recent Ballot 193 reduced the maximum period for certificates and for reuse of vetting data for DV and OV certificates from 39 months to 825 days. The effective date for reducing the maximum validity period of certificates was specified as March 1, 2018, but no effective date was specified for when the reduction of the maximum period for reuse of vetting data becomes effective. It was the intention of the authors of Ballot 193 that the effective date for reducing the maximum period for reuse of vetting data under BR 4.2.1 would also be March 1, 2018. This ballot is intended to clarify that intention. The ballot also makes these changes retroactive to the effective date of Ballot 193 so there is no gap period. Ballot 193 is in the Review Period (which will end on April 22, 2017), and has not yet taken effect. Bylaw 2.3 states that Ballots should include a ?redline or comparison showing the set of changes from the Final Guideline section(s) intended to become a Final Maintenance Guideline? and that ?[s]uch redline or comparison shall be made against the Final Guideline section(s) as they exist at the time a ballot is proposed?. To avoid confusion, this Ballot will show the proposed changes to BR 4.2.1 will be presented two ways: (1) a comparison of the changes to BR 4.2.1 as it existed before Ballot 193 (which is as BR 4.2.1 exists at this time this ballot is proposed), and also (2) a comparison of the changes to BR 4.2.1 as it will exist after the Review Period for Ballot 193 is completed (assuming no Exclusion Notices are filed). The following motion has been proposed by Chris Bailey of Entrust Datacard and endorsed by Ben Wilson of DigiCert, and Wayne Thayer of GoDaddy to introduce new Final Maintenance Guidelines for the "Baseline Requirements Certificate Policy for the Issuance and Management of Publicly-Trusted Certificates" (Baseline Requirements) and the "Guidelines for the Issuance and Management of Extended Validation Certificates" (EV Guidelines). -- MOTION BEGINS -- Ballot Section 1 BR 4.2.1 is amended to read as follows: [Ballot amendments shown against BR 4.2.1 as it currently exists without the changes adopted in Ballot 193] BR 4.2.1. Performing Identification and Authentication Functions The certificate request MAY include all factual information about the Applicant to be included in the Certificate, and such additional information as is necessary for the CA to obtain from the Applicant in order to comply with these Requirements and the CA?s Certificate Policy and/or Certification Practice Statement. In cases where the certificate request does not contain all the necessary information about the Applicant, the CA SHALL obtain the remaining information from the Applicant or, having obtained it from a reliable, independent, third?party data source, confirm it with the Applicant. The CA SHALL establish and follow a documented procedure for verifying all data requested for inclusion in the Certificate by the Applicant. Applicant information MUST include, but not be limited to, at least one Fully?Qualified Domain Name or IP address to be included in the Certificate?s SubjectAltName extension. Section 6.3.2 limits the validity period of Subscriber Certificates. The CA MAY use the documents and data provided in Section 3.2 to verify certificate information, provided that: the CA obtained the data or document from a source specified under Section 3.2 no more than thirty?nine (39) months prior to issuing the Certificate. (1) Prior to March 1, 2018, the CA obtained the data or document from a source specified under Section 3.2 no more than 39 months prior to issuing the Certificate; and (2) On or after March 1, 2018, the CA obtained the data or document from a source specified under Section 3.2 no more than 825 days prior to issuing the Certificate. The CA SHALL develop, maintain, and implement documented procedures that identify and require additional verification activity for High Risk Certificate Requests prior to the Certificate?s approval, as reasonably necessary to ensure that such requests are properly verified under these Requirements. If a Delegated Third Party fulfills any of the CA?s obligations under this section, the CA SHALL verify that the process used by the Delegated Third Party to identify and further verify High Risk Certificate Requests provides at least the same level of assurance as the CA?s own processes. [Ballot amendments shown against BR 4.2.1 as it existed after Ballot 193 was approved] BR 4.2.1. Performing Identification and Authentication Functions The certificate request MAY include all factual information about the Applicant to be included in the Certificate, and such additional information as is necessary for the CA to obtain from the Applicant in order to comply with these Requirements and the CA?s Certificate Policy and/or Certification Practice Statement. In cases where the certificate request does not contain all the necessary information about the Applicant, the CA SHALL obtain the remaining information from the Applicant or, having obtained it from a reliable, independent, third?party data source, confirm it with the Applicant. The CA SHALL establish and follow a documented procedure for verifying all data requested for inclusion in the Certificate by the Applicant. Applicant information MUST include, but not be limited to, at least one Fully?Qualified Domain Name or IP address to be included in the Certificate?s SubjectAltName extension. Section 6.3.2 limits the validity period of Subscriber Certificates. The CA MAY use the documents and data provided in Section 3.2 to verify certificate information, provided that: the CA obtained the data or document from a source specified under Section 3.2 no more than 825 days prior to issuing the Certificate. (1) Prior to March 1, 2018, the CA obtained the data or document from a source specified under Section 3.2 no more than 39 months prior to issuing the Certificate; and (2) On or after March 1, 2018, the CA obtained the data or document from a source specified under Section 3.2 no more than 825 days prior to issuing the Certificate. The CA SHALL develop, maintain, and implement documented procedures that identify and require additional verification activity for High Risk Certificate Requests prior to the Certificate?s approval, as reasonably necessary to ensure that such requests are properly verified under these Requirements. If a Delegated Third Party fulfills any of the CA?s obligations under this section, the CA SHALL verify that the process used by the Delegated Third Party to identify and further verify High Risk Certificate Requests provides at least the same level of assurance as the CA?s own processes. Ballot Section 2 The provisions of Ballot Section 1 will be effective retroactive to the effective date of Ballot 193. --Motion Ends-- The procedure for approval of this Final Maintenance Guideline ballot is as follows (exact start and end times may be adjusted to comply with applicable Bylaws and IPR Agreement): BALLOT 194 Status: Final Maintenance Guideline Start time (22:00 UTC) End time (22:00 UTC) Discussion (7 to 14 days) April 2, 2017 April 9, 2017 Vote for approval (7 days) April 9, 2017 April 16, 2017 If vote approves ballot: Review Period (Chair to send Review Notice) (30 days). If Exclusion Notice(s) filed, ballot approval is rescinded and PAG to be created. If no Exclusion Notices filed, ballot becomes effective at end of Review Period. Upon filing of Review Notice by Chair 30 days after filing of Review Notice by Chair >From Bylaw 2.3: If the Draft Guideline Ballot is proposing a Final Maintenance >Guideline, such ballot will include a redline or comparison showing the set of >changes from the Final Guideline section(s) intended to become a Final >Maintenance Guideline, and need not include a copy of the full set of >guidelines. Such redline or comparison shall be made against the Final >Guideline section(s) as they exist at the time a ballot is proposed, and need >not take into consideration other ballots that may be proposed subsequently, >except as provided in Bylaw Section 2.3(j). Votes must be cast by posting an on-list reply to this thread on the Public list. A vote in favor of the motion must indicate a clear 'yes' in the response. A vote against must indicate a clear 'no' in the response. A vote to abstain must indicate a clear 'abstain' in the response. Unclear responses will not be counted. The latest vote received from any representative of a voting member before the close of the voting period will be counted. Voting members are listed here: https://cabforum.org/members/ <https://cabforum.org/members/> In order for the motion to be adopted, two thirds or more of the votes cast by members in the CA category and greater than 50% of the votes cast by members in the browser category must be in favor. Quorum is shown on CA/Browser Forum wiki. Under Bylaw 2.2(g), at least the required quorum number must participate in the ballot for the ballot to be valid, either by voting in favor, voting against, or abstaining. _______________________________________________ Public mailing list [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> <mailto:[email protected]> https://cabforum.org/mailman/listinfo/public <https://cabforum.org/mailman/listinfo/public> _______________________________________________ Public mailing list [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> <mailto:[email protected]> https://cabforum.org/mailman/listinfo/public <https://cabforum.org/mailman/listinfo/public> _______________________________________________ Public mailing list [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> <mailto:[email protected]> https://cabforum.org/mailman/listinfo/public <https://cabforum.org/mailman/listinfo/public> -- konklone.com <https://konklone.com/> | @konklone <https://twitter.com/konklone>_______________________________________________ Public mailing list [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> https://cabforum.org/mailman/listinfo/public -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://cabforum.org/pipermail/public/attachments/20170418/f7cbf25d/attachment.html> ------------------------------ Subject: Digest Footer _______________________________________________ Public mailing list [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> https://cabforum.org/mailman/listinfo/public ------------------------------ End of Public Digest, Vol 60, Issue 154 ***************************************
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
_______________________________________________ Public mailing list [email protected] https://cabforum.org/mailman/listinfo/public
