Re: [cabfpub] Public Digest, Vol 77, Issue 81

[Ryan Sleevi via Public]

Tim,

Could you explain what you believe is "the status quo" here? A LWG is bound
by the Bylaws in the production of minutes - a conversion to Subcommittee
triggers different behaviours, and "Tim's word" is, unfortunately, not at
all an acceptable guarantee for minimizing ongoing risk. We can address
this by either the SCWG establishing the practice for all Subcommittees -
the preferred approach - or if there is some compelling reason that
necessitates establishing a Subcommittee prior to resolving this (a matter
which no one has yet demonstrated), then in the establishment of those
Subcommittees.

This isn't that hard.

On Fri, Sep 14, 2018 at 7:45 PM Tim Hollebeek 
wrote:

> Ryan, thank you clearly explaining why it is deeply concerning that a
> Google representative is opposed to the status quo.  We will continue to
> have minutes, unless a Google prevents it.
>
>
>
> -Tim
>
>
>
> *From:* Ryan Sleevi 
> *Sent:* Friday, September 14, 2018 6:52 PM
> *To:* Geoff Keating 
> *Cc:* CABFPub ; Tim Hollebeek <
> tim.holleb...@digicert.com>; Virginia Fournier 
> *Subject:* Re: [cabfpub] Public Digest, Vol 77, Issue 81
>
>
>
> You are correct that it's deeply concerning if there can be a Subcommittee
> that *doesn't* take minutes. A good ballot for such a subcommittee would
> affirm its commitment to running in such a way that reduces that risk, so
> that it's easy to support.
>
> On Fri, Sep 14, 2018 at 6:34 PM Geoff Keating  wrote:
>
> I think we’re in agreement as to the effect of not having minutes on the
> IPR policy.
>
>
>
> I don’t believe anyone is proposing a subcommittee charter which
> *prevents* it from having minutes.  So, perhaps if you’re concerned that a
> subcommittee might not have the standard of minute-taking that you would
> like, you could offer to take minutes for that subcommittee?  My experience
> is that such an offer is usually received with gratitude!
>
>
>
> On Sep 14, 2018, at 2:04 PM, Ryan Sleevi via Public 
> wrote:
>
>
>
> Please review section 8 of the IPR policy with your legal counsel, Tim,
> particularly around what constitutes a "Contribution"
>
>
>
> On Fri, Sep 14, 2018 at 4:52 PM Tim Hollebeek 
> wrote:
>
> We have the protections in the IPR policy, because we have the IPR
> policy.  To be clear, the existence or absence of minutes does not in any
> way affect the IPR policy, and there’s no text in the Bylaws or IPR policy
> that suggests that it does.
>
>
>
> -Tim
>
>
>
> *From:* Public  *On Behalf Of *Ryan Sleevi
> via Public
> *Sent:* Friday, September 14, 2018 4:41 PM
> *To:* Virginia Fournier ; CABFPub <
> public@cabforum.org>
> *Subject:* Re: [cabfpub] Public Digest, Vol 77, Issue 81
>
>
>
> Virginia,
>
>
>
> I do not understand how that position is at all consistent with our bylaws
> with respect to IP risk. If we have Subcommittees without the requirement
> to maintain or produce minutes, how could we possibly hope to have the IP
> protections afforded by our policy?
>
>
>
> On Fri, Sep 14, 2018 at 4:32 PM Virginia Fournier via Public <
> public@cabforum.org> wrote:
>
> It would be great if the people who continually complain that the Bylaws
> don’t contain x, or took away y, would actively participate in the process
> to create new versions of the Bylaws.  The version of the Bylaws creating
> CWGs and their Subcommittees was developed over more than a year, with
> ample time for review, comment, revision, rinse and repeat.
>
>
>
> The Bylaws say that "each CWG may establish any number of subcommittees
> within its own Working Group to address any of such CWG’s business.”
> However, there's nothing in the Bylaws that prohibits Subcommittees from
> having their own mailing lists, minutes, chairs, etc.  It looks like
> Subcommittees have the   flexibility to determine how to conduct their own
> business within the CWG.
>
>
>
> If a CWG wants a Subcommittee to do something specific (like keep
> minutes), they can specify that in the CWG charter.
>
>
>
> Best regards,
>
>
>
> Virginia Fournier
>
> Senior Standards Counsel
>
>  Apple Inc.
>
> ☏ 669-227-9595
>
> ✉︎ v...@apple.com
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Sep 14, 2018, at 9:29 AM, public-requ...@cabforum.org wrote:
>
>
>
> Send Public mailing list submissions to
> public@cabforum.org
>
> 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
> public-requ...@cabforum.org
>
> You can reach the person managing the list at
> public-ow...@cabforum.

Re: [cabfpub] Public Digest, Vol 77, Issue 81

[Tim Hollebeek via Public]

Ryan, thank you clearly explaining why it is deeply concerning that a Google 
representative is opposed to the status quo.  We will continue to have minutes, 
unless a Google prevents it.

 

-Tim

 

From: Ryan Sleevi  
Sent: Friday, September 14, 2018 6:52 PM
To: Geoff Keating 
Cc: CABFPub ; Tim Hollebeek ; 
Virginia Fournier 
Subject: Re: [cabfpub] Public Digest, Vol 77, Issue 81

 

You are correct that it's deeply concerning if there can be a Subcommittee that 
*doesn't* take minutes. A good ballot for such a subcommittee would affirm its 
commitment to running in such a way that reduces that risk, so that it's easy 
to support.

On Fri, Sep 14, 2018 at 6:34 PM Geoff Keating mailto:geo...@apple.com> > wrote:

I think we’re in agreement as to the effect of not having minutes on the IPR 
policy.

 

I don’t believe anyone is proposing a subcommittee charter which *prevents* it 
from having minutes.  So, perhaps if you’re concerned that a subcommittee might 
not have the standard of minute-taking that you would like, you could offer to 
take minutes for that subcommittee?  My experience is that such an offer is 
usually received with gratitude!

 

On Sep 14, 2018, at 2:04 PM, Ryan Sleevi via Public mailto:public@cabforum.org> > wrote:

 

Please review section 8 of the IPR policy with your legal counsel, Tim, 
particularly around what constitutes a "Contribution"

 

On Fri, Sep 14, 2018 at 4:52 PM Tim Hollebeek  
wrote:

We have the protections in the IPR policy, because we have the IPR policy.  To 
be clear, the existence or absence of minutes does not in any way affect the 
IPR policy, and there’s no text in the Bylaws or IPR policy that suggests that 
it does.

 

-Tim

 

From: Public mailto:public-boun...@cabforum.org> 
> On Behalf Of Ryan Sleevi via Public
Sent: Friday, September 14, 2018 4:41 PM
To: Virginia Fournier mailto:vfourn...@apple.com> >; 
CABFPub mailto:public@cabforum.org> >
Subject: Re: [cabfpub] Public Digest, Vol 77, Issue 81

 

Virginia,

 

I do not understand how that position is at all consistent with our bylaws with 
respect to IP risk. If we have Subcommittees without the requirement to 
maintain or produce minutes, how could we possibly hope to have the IP 
protections afforded by our policy?

 

On Fri, Sep 14, 2018 at 4:32 PM Virginia Fournier via Public 
mailto:public@cabforum.org> > wrote:

It would be great if the people who continually complain that the Bylaws don’t 
contain x, or took away y, would actively participate in the process to create 
new versions of the Bylaws.  The version of the Bylaws creating CWGs and their 
Subcommittees was developed over more than a year, with ample time for review, 
comment, revision, rinse and repeat.

 

The Bylaws say that "each CWG may establish any number of subcommittees within 
its own Working Group to address any of such CWG’s business.” However, there's 
nothing in the Bylaws that prohibits Subcommittees from having their own 
mailing lists, minutes, chairs, etc.  It looks like Subcommittees have the   
flexibility to determine how to conduct their own business within the CWG.  

 

If a CWG wants a Subcommittee to do something specific (like keep minutes), 
they can specify that in the CWG charter.   

 

Best regards,

 

Virginia Fournier

Senior Standards Counsel

 Apple Inc.

☏ 669-227-9595

✉︎ v...@apple.com <mailto:v...@apple.com> 

 

 

 

On Sep 14, 2018, at 9:29 AM, public-requ...@cabforum.org 
<mailto:public-requ...@cabforum.org>  wrote:

 

Send Public mailing list submissions to
public@cabforum.org <mailto:public@cabforum.org> 

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
public-requ...@cabforum.org <mailto:public-requ...@cabforum.org> 

You can reach the person managing the list at
public-ow...@cabforum.org <mailto:public-ow...@cabforum.org> 

When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
than "Re: Contents of Public digest..."


Today's Topics:

  1. Re: Ballot SC10 ? Establishing the Network Security
 Subcommittee of the SCWG (Ryan Sleevi)
  2. Re: Ballot SC10 ? Establishing the Network Security
 Subcommittee of the SCWG (Tim Hollebeek)


--

Message: 1
Date: Fri, 14 Sep 2018 12:19:24 -0400
From: Ryan Sleevi mailto:sle...@google.com> >
To: Tim Hollebeek mailto:tim.holleb...@digicert.com> >
Cc: CABFPub mailto:public@cabforum.org> >
Subject: Re: [cabfpub] Ballot SC10 ? Establishing the Network Security
Subcommittee of the SCWG
Message-ID:
mailto:cacvawvbodx1ec0bvxrnx7eik3tgb8efxeqv06j_qyzkt7cz...@mail.gmail.com> >
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"

Subcommittees don't have requirements for minutes or publicly-available
notes.

That's the point. All this thinkin

Re: [cabfpub] Public Digest, Vol 77, Issue 81

[Ryan Sleevi via Public]

You are correct that it's deeply concerning if there can be a Subcommittee
that *doesn't* take minutes. A good ballot for such a subcommittee would
affirm its commitment to running in such a way that reduces that risk, so
that it's easy to support.

On Fri, Sep 14, 2018 at 6:34 PM Geoff Keating  wrote:

> I think we’re in agreement as to the effect of not having minutes on the
> IPR policy.
>
> I don’t believe anyone is proposing a subcommittee charter which
> *prevents* it from having minutes.  So, perhaps if you’re concerned that a
> subcommittee might not have the standard of minute-taking that you would
> like, you could offer to take minutes for that subcommittee?  My experience
> is that such an offer is usually received with gratitude!
>
> On Sep 14, 2018, at 2:04 PM, Ryan Sleevi via Public 
> wrote:
>
> Please review section 8 of the IPR policy with your legal counsel, Tim,
> particularly around what constitutes a "Contribution"
>
> On Fri, Sep 14, 2018 at 4:52 PM Tim Hollebeek 
> wrote:
>
>> We have the protections in the IPR policy, because we have the IPR
>> policy.  To be clear, the existence or absence of minutes does not in any
>> way affect the IPR policy, and there’s no text in the Bylaws or IPR policy
>> that suggests that it does.
>>
>>
>>
>> -Tim
>>
>>
>>
>> *From:* Public  *On Behalf Of *Ryan Sleevi
>> via Public
>> *Sent:* Friday, September 14, 2018 4:41 PM
>> *To:* Virginia Fournier ; CABFPub <
>> public@cabforum.org>
>> *Subject:* Re: [cabfpub] Public Digest, Vol 77, Issue 81
>>
>>
>>
>> Virginia,
>>
>>
>>
>> I do not understand how that position is at all consistent with our
>> bylaws with respect to IP risk. If we have Subcommittees without the
>> requirement to maintain or produce minutes, how could we possibly hope to
>> have the IP protections afforded by our policy?
>>
>>
>>
>> On Fri, Sep 14, 2018 at 4:32 PM Virginia Fournier via Public <
>> public@cabforum.org> wrote:
>>
>> It would be great if the people who continually complain that the Bylaws
>> don’t contain x, or took away y, would actively participate in the process
>> to create new versions of the Bylaws.  The version of the Bylaws creating
>> CWGs and their Subcommittees was developed over more than a year, with
>> ample time for review, comment, revision, rinse and repeat.
>>
>>
>>
>> The Bylaws say that "each CWG may establish any number of subcommittees
>> within its own Working Group to address any of such CWG’s business.”
>> However, there's nothing in the Bylaws that prohibits Subcommittees from
>> having their own mailing lists, minutes, chairs, etc.  It looks like
>> Subcommittees have the   flexibility to determine how to conduct their own
>> business within the CWG.
>>
>>
>>
>> If a CWG wants a Subcommittee to do something specific (like keep
>> minutes), they can specify that in the CWG charter.
>>
>>
>>
>> Best regards,
>>
>>
>>
>> Virginia Fournier
>>
>> Senior Standards Counsel
>>
>>  Apple Inc.
>>
>> ☏ 669-227-9595
>>
>> ✉︎ v...@apple.com
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Sep 14, 2018, at 9:29 AM, public-requ...@cabforum.org wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> Send Public mailing list submissions to
>> public@cabforum.org
>>
>> 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
>> public-requ...@cabforum.org
>>
>> You can reach the person managing the list at
>> public-ow...@cabforum.org
>>
>> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
>> than "Re: Contents of Public digest..."
>>
>>
>> Today's Topics:
>>
>>   1. Re: Ballot SC10 ? Establishing the Network Security
>>  Subcommittee of the SCWG (Ryan Sleevi)
>>   2. Re: Ballot SC10 ? Establishing the Network Security
>>  Subcommittee of the SCWG (Tim Hollebeek)
>>
>>
>> --
>>
>> Message: 1
>> Date: Fri, 14 Sep 2018 12:19:24 -0400
>> From: Ryan Sleevi 
>> To: Tim Hollebeek 
>> Cc: CABFPub 
>> Subject: Re: [cabfpub] Ballot SC10 ? Establishing the Network Security
>> Subcommittee of the SCWG
>> Message-ID:
>> 
>> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
>>
>> Subcommi

Re: [cabfpub] Public Digest, Vol 77, Issue 81

[Tim Hollebeek via Public]

I can confirm that the Validation Working Group actually has a list of 
participants that have volunteered to take minutes, and we rotate between them. 
 The time and effort of those four participants is greatly appreciated.  And 
that’s not just polite wording.  Those four people are awesome, and I sincerely 
appreciate their assistance.

 

If anyone else wants to be added to the list, feel free to let me know.

 

-Tim

 

From: geo...@apple.com  
Sent: Friday, September 14, 2018 6:35 PM
To: Ryan Sleevi ; CA/Browser Forum Public Discussion List 

Cc: Tim Hollebeek ; Virginia Fournier 

Subject: Re: [cabfpub] Public Digest, Vol 77, Issue 81

 

I think we’re in agreement as to the effect of not having minutes on the IPR 
policy.

 

I don’t believe anyone is proposing a subcommittee charter which *prevents* it 
from having minutes.  So, perhaps if you’re concerned that a subcommittee might 
not have the standard of minute-taking that you would like, you could offer to 
take minutes for that subcommittee?  My experience is that such an offer is 
usually received with gratitude!

 

On Sep 14, 2018, at 2:04 PM, Ryan Sleevi via Public mailto:public@cabforum.org> > wrote:

 

Please review section 8 of the IPR policy with your legal counsel, Tim, 
particularly around what constitutes a "Contribution"

 

On Fri, Sep 14, 2018 at 4:52 PM Tim Hollebeek mailto:tim.holleb...@digicert.com> > wrote:

We have the protections in the IPR policy, because we have the IPR policy.  To 
be clear, the existence or absence of minutes does not in any way affect the 
IPR policy, and there’s no text in the Bylaws or IPR policy that suggests that 
it does.

 

-Tim

 

From: Public mailto:public-boun...@cabforum.org> 
> On Behalf Of Ryan Sleevi via Public
Sent: Friday, September 14, 2018 4:41 PM
To: Virginia Fournier mailto:vfourn...@apple.com> >; 
CABFPub mailto:public@cabforum.org> >
Subject: Re: [cabfpub] Public Digest, Vol 77, Issue 81

 

Virginia,

 

I do not understand how that position is at all consistent with our bylaws with 
respect to IP risk. If we have Subcommittees without the requirement to 
maintain or produce minutes, how could we possibly hope to have the IP 
protections afforded by our policy?

 

On Fri, Sep 14, 2018 at 4:32 PM Virginia Fournier via Public 
mailto:public@cabforum.org> > wrote:

It would be great if the people who continually complain that the Bylaws don’t 
contain x, or took away y, would actively participate in the process to create 
new versions of the Bylaws.  The version of the Bylaws creating CWGs and their 
Subcommittees was developed over more than a year, with ample time for review, 
comment, revision, rinse and repeat.

 

The Bylaws say that "each CWG may establish any number of subcommittees within 
its own Working Group to address any of such CWG’s business.” However, there's 
nothing in the Bylaws that prohibits Subcommittees from having their own 
mailing lists, minutes, chairs, etc.  It looks like Subcommittees have the   
flexibility to determine how to conduct their own business within the CWG.  

 

If a CWG wants a Subcommittee to do something specific (like keep minutes), 
they can specify that in the CWG charter.   

 

Best regards,

 

Virginia Fournier

Senior Standards Counsel

 Apple Inc.

☏ 669-227-9595

✉︎ v...@apple.com <mailto:v...@apple.com> 

 

 

 

On Sep 14, 2018, at 9:29 AM, public-requ...@cabforum.org 
<mailto:public-requ...@cabforum.org>  wrote:

 

Send Public mailing list submissions to
public@cabforum.org <mailto:public@cabforum.org> 

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
public-requ...@cabforum.org <mailto:public-requ...@cabforum.org> 

You can reach the person managing the list at
public-ow...@cabforum.org <mailto:public-ow...@cabforum.org> 

When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
than "Re: Contents of Public digest..."


Today's Topics:

  1. Re: Ballot SC10 ? Establishing the Network Security
 Subcommittee of the SCWG (Ryan Sleevi)
  2. Re: Ballot SC10 ? Establishing the Network Security
 Subcommittee of the SCWG (Tim Hollebeek)


--

Message: 1
Date: Fri, 14 Sep 2018 12:19:24 -0400
From: Ryan Sleevi mailto:sle...@google.com> >
To: Tim Hollebeek mailto:tim.holleb...@digicert.com> >
Cc: CABFPub mailto:public@cabforum.org> >
Subject: Re: [cabfpub] Ballot SC10 ? Establishing the Network Security
Subcommittee of the SCWG
Message-ID:
mailto:cacvawvbodx1ec0bvxrnx7eik3tgb8efxeqv06j_qyzkt7cz...@mail.gmail.com> >
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"

Subcommittees don't have requirements for minutes or publicly-available
notes.

That's the point. All this thinking about subcommittees workin

Re: [cabfpub] Public Digest, Vol 77, Issue 81

[Geoff Keating via Public]

I think we’re in agreement as to the effect of not having minutes on the IPR 
policy.

I don’t believe anyone is proposing a subcommittee charter which *prevents* it 
from having minutes.  So, perhaps if you’re concerned that a subcommittee might 
not have the standard of minute-taking that you would like, you could offer to 
take minutes for that subcommittee?  My experience is that such an offer is 
usually received with gratitude!

> On Sep 14, 2018, at 2:04 PM, Ryan Sleevi via Public  
> wrote:
> 
> Please review section 8 of the IPR policy with your legal counsel, Tim, 
> particularly around what constitutes a "Contribution"
> 
> On Fri, Sep 14, 2018 at 4:52 PM Tim Hollebeek  <mailto:tim.holleb...@digicert.com>> wrote:
> We have the protections in the IPR policy, because we have the IPR policy.  
> To be clear, the existence or absence of minutes does not in any way affect 
> the IPR policy, and there’s no text in the Bylaws or IPR policy that suggests 
> that it does.
> 
>  
> 
> -Tim
> 
>  
> 
> From: Public  <mailto:public-boun...@cabforum.org>> On Behalf Of Ryan Sleevi via Public
> Sent: Friday, September 14, 2018 4:41 PM
> To: Virginia Fournier mailto:vfourn...@apple.com>>; 
> CABFPub mailto:public@cabforum.org>>
> Subject: Re: [cabfpub] Public Digest, Vol 77, Issue 81
> 
>  
> 
> Virginia,
> 
>  
> 
> I do not understand how that position is at all consistent with our bylaws 
> with respect to IP risk. If we have Subcommittees without the requirement to 
> maintain or produce minutes, how could we possibly hope to have the IP 
> protections afforded by our policy?
> 
>  
> 
> On Fri, Sep 14, 2018 at 4:32 PM Virginia Fournier via Public 
> mailto:public@cabforum.org>> wrote:
> 
> It would be great if the people who continually complain that the Bylaws 
> don’t contain x, or took away y, would actively participate in the process to 
> create new versions of the Bylaws.  The version of the Bylaws creating CWGs 
> and their Subcommittees was developed over more than a year, with ample time 
> for review, comment, revision, rinse and repeat.
> 
>  
> 
> The Bylaws say that "each CWG may establish any number of subcommittees 
> within its own Working Group to address any of such CWG’s business.” However, 
> there's nothing in the Bylaws that prohibits Subcommittees from having their 
> own mailing lists, minutes, chairs, etc.  It looks like Subcommittees have 
> the   flexibility to determine how to conduct their own business within the 
> CWG.  
> 
>  
> 
> If a CWG wants a Subcommittee to do something specific (like keep minutes), 
> they can specify that in the CWG charter.   
> 
>  
> 
> Best regards,
> 
>  
> 
> Virginia Fournier
> 
> Senior Standards Counsel
> 
>  Apple Inc.
> 
> ☏ 669-227-9595
> 
> ✉︎ v...@apple.com <mailto:v...@apple.com>
>  
> 
>  
> 
>  
> 
> On Sep 14, 2018, at 9:29 AM, public-requ...@cabforum.org 
> <mailto:public-requ...@cabforum.org> wrote:
> 
>  
> 
> Send Public mailing list submissions to
> public@cabforum.org <mailto:public@cabforum.org>
> 
> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
> https://cabforum.org/mailman/listinfo/public 
> <https://cabforum.org/mailman/listinfo/public>
> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
> public-requ...@cabforum.org <mailto:public-requ...@cabforum.org>
> 
> You can reach the person managing the list at
> public-ow...@cabforum.org <mailto:public-ow...@cabforum.org>
> 
> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
> than "Re: Contents of Public digest..."
> 
> 
> Today's Topics:
> 
>   1. Re: Ballot SC10 ? Establishing the Network Security
>  Subcommittee of the SCWG (Ryan Sleevi)
>   2. Re: Ballot SC10 ? Establishing the Network Security
>  Subcommittee of the SCWG (Tim Hollebeek)
> 
> 
> --
> 
> Message: 1
> Date: Fri, 14 Sep 2018 12:19:24 -0400
> From: Ryan Sleevi mailto:sle...@google.com>>
> To: Tim Hollebeek  <mailto:tim.holleb...@digicert.com>>
> Cc: CABFPub mailto:public@cabforum.org>>
> Subject: Re: [cabfpub] Ballot SC10 ? Establishing the Network Security
> Subcommittee of the SCWG
> Message-ID:
>  <mailto:cacvawvbodx1ec0bvxrnx7eik3tgb8efxeqv06j_qyzkt7cz...@mail.gmail.com>>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
> 
> Subcommittees don't have requirements for minutes or publicly-available
> notes.
> 
> That's the point. All this thinking about subcommittees working "just l

Re: [cabfpub] Public Digest, Vol 77, Issue 81

[Ryan Sleevi via Public]

Please review section 8 of the IPR policy with your legal counsel, Tim,
particularly around what constitutes a "Contribution"

On Fri, Sep 14, 2018 at 4:52 PM Tim Hollebeek 
wrote:

> We have the protections in the IPR policy, because we have the IPR
> policy.  To be clear, the existence or absence of minutes does not in any
> way affect the IPR policy, and there’s no text in the Bylaws or IPR policy
> that suggests that it does.
>
>
>
> -Tim
>
>
>
> *From:* Public  *On Behalf Of *Ryan Sleevi
> via Public
> *Sent:* Friday, September 14, 2018 4:41 PM
> *To:* Virginia Fournier ; CABFPub <
> public@cabforum.org>
> *Subject:* Re: [cabfpub] Public Digest, Vol 77, Issue 81
>
>
>
> Virginia,
>
>
>
> I do not understand how that position is at all consistent with our bylaws
> with respect to IP risk. If we have Subcommittees without the requirement
> to maintain or produce minutes, how could we possibly hope to have the IP
> protections afforded by our policy?
>
>
>
> On Fri, Sep 14, 2018 at 4:32 PM Virginia Fournier via Public <
> public@cabforum.org> wrote:
>
> It would be great if the people who continually complain that the Bylaws
> don’t contain x, or took away y, would actively participate in the process
> to create new versions of the Bylaws.  The version of the Bylaws creating
> CWGs and their Subcommittees was developed over more than a year, with
> ample time for review, comment, revision, rinse and repeat.
>
>
>
> The Bylaws say that "each CWG may establish any number of subcommittees
> within its own Working Group to address any of such CWG’s business.”
> However, there's nothing in the Bylaws that prohibits Subcommittees from
> having their own mailing lists, minutes, chairs, etc.  It looks like
> Subcommittees have the   flexibility to determine how to conduct their own
> business within the CWG.
>
>
>
> If a CWG wants a Subcommittee to do something specific (like keep
> minutes), they can specify that in the CWG charter.
>
>
>
> Best regards,
>
>
>
> Virginia Fournier
>
> Senior Standards Counsel
>
>  Apple Inc.
>
> ☏ 669-227-9595
>
> ✉︎ v...@apple.com
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Sep 14, 2018, at 9:29 AM, public-requ...@cabforum.org wrote:
>
>
>
> Send Public mailing list submissions to
> public@cabforum.org
>
> 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
> public-requ...@cabforum.org
>
> You can reach the person managing the list at
> public-ow...@cabforum.org
>
> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
> than "Re: Contents of Public digest..."
>
>
> Today's Topics:
>
>   1. Re: Ballot SC10 ? Establishing the Network Security
>  Subcommittee of the SCWG (Ryan Sleevi)
>   2. Re: Ballot SC10 ? Establishing the Network Security
>  Subcommittee of the SCWG (Tim Hollebeek)
>
>
> --
>
> Message: 1
> Date: Fri, 14 Sep 2018 12:19:24 -0400
> From: Ryan Sleevi 
> To: Tim Hollebeek 
> Cc: CABFPub 
> Subject: Re: [cabfpub] Ballot SC10 ? Establishing the Network Security
> Subcommittee of the SCWG
> Message-ID:
> 
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
>
> Subcommittees don't have requirements for minutes or publicly-available
> notes.
>
> That's the point. All this thinking about subcommittees working "just like"
> LWGs is not the case. All of that was lost from the Bylaws. A subcommittee
> can just be two people having a chat, at least as written in the Bylaws
> today.
>
> There's nothing stating subcommittees work with their own mailing lists,
> for example, in the way our old bylaws did. There's nothing establishing
> chairs or charters or deliverables. It's a one-off note.
>
> That's the point.
>
> On Fri, Sep 14, 2018 at 12:13 PM Tim Hollebeek  >
> wrote:
>
>
> Collaborating outside of a subcommittee has a bunch of drawbacks,
> including a complete lack of public transparency and much weaker IPR
> protections.
>
>
>
> In my opinion, there?s already way, way too much going on in private that
> would be better handled in subcommittees where everyone can participate and
> there are publicly available notes.
>
>
>
> -Tim
>
>
>
> *From:* Public  *On Behalf Of *Wayne Thayer
> via Public
> *Sent:* Thursday, September 13, 2018 7:11 PM
> *To:* Ryan Sleevi ; CA/Browser Forum Public Discussion
> List 
> *Subject:* Re: [cabfpub] Ballot SC10 ? Establishing the Network 

Re: [cabfpub] Public Digest, Vol 77, Issue 81

[Tim Hollebeek via Public]

We have the protections in the IPR policy, because we have the IPR policy.  To 
be clear, the existence or absence of minutes does not in any way affect the 
IPR policy, and there’s no text in the Bylaws or IPR policy that suggests that 
it does.

 

-Tim

 

From: Public  On Behalf Of Ryan Sleevi via Public
Sent: Friday, September 14, 2018 4:41 PM
To: Virginia Fournier ; CABFPub 
Subject: Re: [cabfpub] Public Digest, Vol 77, Issue 81

 

Virginia,

 

I do not understand how that position is at all consistent with our bylaws with 
respect to IP risk. If we have Subcommittees without the requirement to 
maintain or produce minutes, how could we possibly hope to have the IP 
protections afforded by our policy?

 

On Fri, Sep 14, 2018 at 4:32 PM Virginia Fournier via Public 
mailto:public@cabforum.org> > wrote:

It would be great if the people who continually complain that the Bylaws don’t 
contain x, or took away y, would actively participate in the process to create 
new versions of the Bylaws.  The version of the Bylaws creating CWGs and their 
Subcommittees was developed over more than a year, with ample time for review, 
comment, revision, rinse and repeat.

 

The Bylaws say that "each CWG may establish any number of subcommittees within 
its own Working Group to address any of such CWG’s business.” However, there's 
nothing in the Bylaws that prohibits Subcommittees from having their own 
mailing lists, minutes, chairs, etc.  It looks like Subcommittees have the   
flexibility to determine how to conduct their own business within the CWG.  

 

If a CWG wants a Subcommittee to do something specific (like keep minutes), 
they can specify that in the CWG charter.   

 

Best regards,

 

Virginia Fournier

Senior Standards Counsel

 Apple Inc.

☏ 669-227-9595

✉︎ v...@apple.com <mailto:v...@apple.com> 

 

 

 

On Sep 14, 2018, at 9:29 AM, public-requ...@cabforum.org 
<mailto:public-requ...@cabforum.org>  wrote:

 

Send Public mailing list submissions to
public@cabforum.org <mailto:public@cabforum.org> 

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
public-requ...@cabforum.org <mailto:public-requ...@cabforum.org> 

You can reach the person managing the list at
public-ow...@cabforum.org <mailto:public-ow...@cabforum.org> 

When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
than "Re: Contents of Public digest..."


Today's Topics:

  1. Re: Ballot SC10 ? Establishing the Network Security
 Subcommittee of the SCWG (Ryan Sleevi)
  2. Re: Ballot SC10 ? Establishing the Network Security
 Subcommittee of the SCWG (Tim Hollebeek)


--

Message: 1
Date: Fri, 14 Sep 2018 12:19:24 -0400
From: Ryan Sleevi mailto:sle...@google.com> >
To: Tim Hollebeek mailto:tim.holleb...@digicert.com> >
Cc: CABFPub mailto:public@cabforum.org> >
Subject: Re: [cabfpub] Ballot SC10 ? Establishing the Network Security
Subcommittee of the SCWG
Message-ID:
mailto:cacvawvbodx1ec0bvxrnx7eik3tgb8efxeqv06j_qyzkt7cz...@mail.gmail.com> >
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"

Subcommittees don't have requirements for minutes or publicly-available
notes.

That's the point. All this thinking about subcommittees working "just like"
LWGs is not the case. All of that was lost from the Bylaws. A subcommittee
can just be two people having a chat, at least as written in the Bylaws
today.

There's nothing stating subcommittees work with their own mailing lists,
for example, in the way our old bylaws did. There's nothing establishing
chairs or charters or deliverables. It's a one-off note.

That's the point.

On Fri, Sep 14, 2018 at 12:13 PM Tim Hollebeek mailto:tim.holleb...@digicert.com> >
wrote:




Collaborating outside of a subcommittee has a bunch of drawbacks,
including a complete lack of public transparency and much weaker IPR
protections.



In my opinion, there?s already way, way too much going on in private that
would be better handled in subcommittees where everyone can participate and
there are publicly available notes.



-Tim



*From:* Public mailto:public-boun...@cabforum.org> > *On Behalf Of *Wayne Thayer
via Public
*Sent:* Thursday, September 13, 2018 7:11 PM
*To:* Ryan Sleevi mailto:sle...@google.com> >; CA/Browser 
Forum Public Discussion
List mailto:public@cabforum.org> >
*Subject:* Re: [cabfpub] Ballot SC10 ? Establishing the Network Security
Subcommittee of the SCWG



Would it be helpful to take a step back and propose an amendment to the
Bylaws or SCWG charter that addresses Subcommittees in sufficient detail? I
would be willing to work on that. Meanwhile, if the Network Security WG
left some urgent work unfinished, nothing prevents SCWG members from
collaborating outside of the Subcommittee

Re: [cabfpub] Public Digest, Vol 77, Issue 81

[Ryan Sleevi via Public]

Virginia,

I do not understand how that position is at all consistent with our bylaws
with respect to IP risk. If we have Subcommittees without the requirement
to maintain or produce minutes, how could we possibly hope to have the IP
protections afforded by our policy?

On Fri, Sep 14, 2018 at 4:32 PM Virginia Fournier via Public <
public@cabforum.org> wrote:

> It would be great if the people who continually complain that the Bylaws
> don’t contain x, or took away y, would actively participate in the process
> to create new versions of the Bylaws.  The version of the Bylaws creating
> CWGs and their Subcommittees was developed over more than a year, with
> ample time for review, comment, revision, rinse and repeat.
>
> The Bylaws say that "each CWG may establish any number of subcommittees
> within its own Working Group to address any of such CWG’s business.”
> However, there's nothing in the Bylaws that prohibits Subcommittees from
> having their own mailing lists, minutes, chairs, etc.  It looks like
> Subcommittees have the   flexibility to determine how to conduct their own
> business within the CWG.
>
> If a CWG wants a Subcommittee to do something specific (like keep
> minutes), they can specify that in the CWG charter.
>
> Best regards,
>
> Virginia Fournier
> Senior Standards Counsel
>  Apple Inc.
> ☏ 669-227-9595
> ✉︎ v...@apple.com
>
>
>
> On Sep 14, 2018, at 9:29 AM, public-requ...@cabforum.org wrote:
>
> Send Public mailing list submissions to
> public@cabforum.org
>
> 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
> public-requ...@cabforum.org
>
> You can reach the person managing the list at
> public-ow...@cabforum.org
>
> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
> than "Re: Contents of Public digest..."
>
>
> Today's Topics:
>
>   1. Re: Ballot SC10 ? Establishing the Network Security
>  Subcommittee of the SCWG (Ryan Sleevi)
>   2. Re: Ballot SC10 ? Establishing the Network Security
>  Subcommittee of the SCWG (Tim Hollebeek)
>
>
> --
>
> Message: 1
> Date: Fri, 14 Sep 2018 12:19:24 -0400
> From: Ryan Sleevi 
> To: Tim Hollebeek 
> Cc: CABFPub 
> Subject: Re: [cabfpub] Ballot SC10 ? Establishing the Network Security
> Subcommittee of the SCWG
> Message-ID:
> 
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
>
> Subcommittees don't have requirements for minutes or publicly-available
> notes.
>
> That's the point. All this thinking about subcommittees working "just like"
> LWGs is not the case. All of that was lost from the Bylaws. A subcommittee
> can just be two people having a chat, at least as written in the Bylaws
> today.
>
> There's nothing stating subcommittees work with their own mailing lists,
> for example, in the way our old bylaws did. There's nothing establishing
> chairs or charters or deliverables. It's a one-off note.
>
> That's the point.
>
> On Fri, Sep 14, 2018 at 12:13 PM Tim Hollebeek  >
> wrote:
>
> Collaborating outside of a subcommittee has a bunch of drawbacks,
> including a complete lack of public transparency and much weaker IPR
> protections.
>
>
>
> In my opinion, there?s already way, way too much going on in private that
> would be better handled in subcommittees where everyone can participate and
> there are publicly available notes.
>
>
>
> -Tim
>
>
>
> *From:* Public  *On Behalf Of *Wayne Thayer
> via Public
> *Sent:* Thursday, September 13, 2018 7:11 PM
> *To:* Ryan Sleevi ; CA/Browser Forum Public Discussion
> List 
> *Subject:* Re: [cabfpub] Ballot SC10 ? Establishing the Network Security
> Subcommittee of the SCWG
>
>
>
> Would it be helpful to take a step back and propose an amendment to the
> Bylaws or SCWG charter that addresses Subcommittees in sufficient detail? I
> would be willing to work on that. Meanwhile, if the Network Security WG
> left some urgent work unfinished, nothing prevents SCWG members from
> collaborating outside of the Subcommittee structure.
>
>
>
> On Thu, Sep 13, 2018 at 3:49 PM Ryan Sleevi via Public <
> public@cabforum.org> wrote:
>
> I think that, without incorporating or responding to feedback, we will be
> opposed to this ballot. I agree that it's unfortunate we have gotten
> nowhere - but it's equally unfortunate to have spent two months without
> responding to any of the substance of the issues. It's great to see
> progress, but making small steps doesn't excuse leaving glaring issues.
> It's better to let these fall down than to support them with fundamental
> flaws.
>
>
>
> Concrete feedback is:
>
> Delete: "These renewed NCSSR documents will serve CAs, auditors and
> browsers in giving a state of the art set of rules for the deployment and
> operation of CAs computing infrastructures."
>
> Rationale: That presumes this output will be valid/valuable.
>
>
>
> Delete: "The Subcommittee may choose its own 

Re: [cabfpub] Public Digest, Vol 77, Issue 81

[Virginia Fournier via Public]

It would be great if the people who continually complain that the Bylaws don’t 
contain x, or took away y, would actively participate in the process to create 
new versions of the Bylaws.  The version of the Bylaws creating CWGs and their 
Subcommittees was developed over more than a year, with ample time for review, 
comment, revision, rinse and repeat.

The Bylaws say that "each CWG may establish any number of subcommittees within 
its own Working Group to address any of such CWG’s business.” However, there's 
nothing in the Bylaws that prohibits Subcommittees from having their own 
mailing lists, minutes, chairs, etc.  It looks like Subcommittees have the   
flexibility to determine how to conduct their own business within the CWG.  

If a CWG wants a Subcommittee to do something specific (like keep minutes), 
they can specify that in the CWG charter.   

Best regards,

Virginia Fournier
Senior Standards Counsel
 Apple Inc.
☏ 669-227-9595
✉︎ v...@apple.com 



On Sep 14, 2018, at 9:29 AM, public-requ...@cabforum.org wrote:

Send Public mailing list submissions to
public@cabforum.org

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
public-requ...@cabforum.org

You can reach the person managing the list at
public-ow...@cabforum.org

When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
than "Re: Contents of Public digest..."


Today's Topics:

  1. Re: Ballot SC10 ? Establishing the Network Security
 Subcommittee of the SCWG (Ryan Sleevi)
  2. Re: Ballot SC10 ? Establishing the Network Security
 Subcommittee of the SCWG (Tim Hollebeek)


--

Message: 1
Date: Fri, 14 Sep 2018 12:19:24 -0400
From: Ryan Sleevi 
To: Tim Hollebeek 
Cc: CABFPub 
Subject: Re: [cabfpub] Ballot SC10 ? Establishing the Network Security
Subcommittee of the SCWG
Message-ID:

Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"

Subcommittees don't have requirements for minutes or publicly-available
notes.

That's the point. All this thinking about subcommittees working "just like"
LWGs is not the case. All of that was lost from the Bylaws. A subcommittee
can just be two people having a chat, at least as written in the Bylaws
today.

There's nothing stating subcommittees work with their own mailing lists,
for example, in the way our old bylaws did. There's nothing establishing
chairs or charters or deliverables. It's a one-off note.

That's the point.

On Fri, Sep 14, 2018 at 12:13 PM Tim Hollebeek 
wrote:

> Collaborating outside of a subcommittee has a bunch of drawbacks,
> including a complete lack of public transparency and much weaker IPR
> protections.
> 
> 
> 
> In my opinion, there?s already way, way too much going on in private that
> would be better handled in subcommittees where everyone can participate and
> there are publicly available notes.
> 
> 
> 
> -Tim
> 
> 
> 
> *From:* Public  *On Behalf Of *Wayne Thayer
> via Public
> *Sent:* Thursday, September 13, 2018 7:11 PM
> *To:* Ryan Sleevi ; CA/Browser Forum Public Discussion
> List 
> *Subject:* Re: [cabfpub] Ballot SC10 ? Establishing the Network Security
> Subcommittee of the SCWG
> 
> 
> 
> Would it be helpful to take a step back and propose an amendment to the
> Bylaws or SCWG charter that addresses Subcommittees in sufficient detail? I
> would be willing to work on that. Meanwhile, if the Network Security WG
> left some urgent work unfinished, nothing prevents SCWG members from
> collaborating outside of the Subcommittee structure.
> 
> 
> 
> On Thu, Sep 13, 2018 at 3:49 PM Ryan Sleevi via Public <
> public@cabforum.org> wrote:
> 
> I think that, without incorporating or responding to feedback, we will be
> opposed to this ballot. I agree that it's unfortunate we have gotten
> nowhere - but it's equally unfortunate to have spent two months without
> responding to any of the substance of the issues. It's great to see
> progress, but making small steps doesn't excuse leaving glaring issues.
> It's better to let these fall down than to support them with fundamental
> flaws.
> 
> 
> 
> Concrete feedback is:
> 
> Delete: "These renewed NCSSR documents will serve CAs, auditors and
> browsers in giving a state of the art set of rules for the deployment and
> operation of CAs computing infrastructures."
> 
> Rationale: That presumes this output will be valid/valuable.
> 
> 
> 
> Delete: "The Subcommittee may choose its own initial Chair."
> 
> Rationale: Subcommittees don't have Chairs and votes. They're just
> meetings of the CWG with focus.
> 
> 
> 
> Delete: "The Network Security Subcommittee shall produce one or more
> documents offering options to the Forum for establishing minimal security
> standards within the scope defined above, which may be used to modify the
> existing NCSSRs."
> 
> Rationale: This