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. 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. The issue with numbers that you note could be handled there as well. -Tim From: Public <public-boun...@cabforum.org> On Behalf Of Dimitris Zacharopoulos via Public Sent: Tuesday, September 11, 2018 7:43 AM To: public@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@cabforum.org <mailto:Public@cabforum.org> https://cabforum.org/mailman/listinfo/public
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
_______________________________________________ Public mailing list Public@cabforum.org https://cabforum.org/mailman/listinfo/public
