Re: [cabfpub] Pre-Ballot 206 - Amendment to IPR Policy & Bylaws re Working Group Formation

Thanks Dean! On Tue, Jan 23, 2018 at 11:50 AM, Dean Coclin wrote: > >1. >2. Initial chairs: Yes, unless otherwise decided by the working group >(as currently stated in the document) > > 'Yes, in the future, newly elected forum chairs automatically become

Re: [cabfpub] Pre-Ballot 206 - Amendment to IPR Policy & Bylaws re Working Group Formation

Ballot 206 - Amendment to IPR Policy & Bylaws re Working Group Formation Thank you Ben, Virginia, and WG members for all your hard work to get us to this point. I reviewed these documents and have just a few comments: My main question is about our bi-weekly teleconference. In Ben’s la

Re: [cabfpub] Pre-Ballot 206 - Amendment to IPR Policy & Bylaws re Working Group Formation

t;; CA/Browser Forum Public Discussion List <public@cabforum.org> Subject: Re: [cabfpub] Pre-Ballot 206 - Amendment to IPR Policy & Bylaws re Working Group Formation > Bylaws: > - (nit) Section 2.2(a) ends Forum membership when the party is not a member > of any work

Re: [cabfpub] Pre-Ballot 206 - Amendment to IPR Policy & Bylaws re Working Group Formation

On 22/01/18 18:20, Virginia Fournier via Public wrote: > Gerv - what do you mean by “new IPR signatures”? Thanks. Apologies - I agree there's a hidden assumption there. I assumed that each time a member joined a new WG, they'd sign the IPR document for that WG. But thinking about it, I realise

Re: [cabfpub] Pre-Ballot 206 - Amendment to IPR Policy & Bylaws re Working Group Formation

On 22/01/18 19:37, Virginia Fournier wrote: > How do you want to be able to introduce one WGs work product to another > WG?  One of the principle goals of this new model was to keep IPR > commitments within the WG that a member is participating in.  Are you > now saying that you want IPR

Re: [cabfpub] Pre-Ballot 206 - Amendment to IPR Policy & Bylaws re Working Group Formation

On 22/01/18 18:16, Tim Hollebeek wrote: > OTOH, the Network Security LWG is addressing issues that are more > likely to apply across multiple different WGs, since they are generic > issues about how to securely run a certificate authority. Whether the > certificates are for Web PKI or Email or

Re: [cabfpub] Pre-Ballot 206 - Amendment to IPR Policy & Bylaws re Working Group Formation

I agree we can probably come to a solution on the subcommittee issue very quickly. It may not even need to be resolved if everyone just agrees that WGs are obviously allowed to designate their own subcommittees as they see fit. I think part of the problem is that various models have been

[cabfpub] Pre-Ballot 206 - Amendment to IPR Policy & Bylaws re Working Group Formation

We can add the subcommittee language to the Bylaws for clarity - that is not a problem. As the Governance WG was drafting the documents, we didn’t think subcommittees would be needed with the new multi-WG structure - but if they are needed we can restore the language. How do you want to be

[cabfpub] Pre-Ballot 206 - Amendment to IPR Policy & Bylaws re Working Group Formation

er <vfourn...@apple.com> Subject: Re: [cabfpub] Pre-Ballot 206 - Amendment to IPR Policy & Bylaws re Working Group Formation Message-ID: <144e40cc-47ee-e3b9-a636-1e898106e...@mozilla.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 On 19/01/18 20:30, Wayne Thayer

Re: [cabfpub] Pre-Ballot 206 - Amendment to IPR Policy & Bylaws re Working Group Formation

> Yes. We definitely don't want multiple WGs covering server certificates. > The existing WGs in that category need to either go away, or become > subcommittees of the Server Certificate WG. The problem is this isn't entirely true. The Validation LWG probably should be a subcommittee of the

Re: [cabfpub] Pre-Ballot 206 - Amendment to IPR Policy & Bylaws re Working Group Formation

On 19/01/18 20:30, Wayne Thayer via Public wrote: > I don't think this statement is obviously true.  The current bylaws > define these "subcommittees" (called Working Groups) - the new bylaws do > not. So one reasonable interpretation is that they can no longer exist. > For example, if we go to

Re: [cabfpub] Pre-Ballot 206 - Amendment to IPR Policy & Bylaws re Working Group Formation

On Fri, Jan 19, 2018 at 12:03 PM, Virginia Fournier via Public < public@cabforum.org> wrote: > Yes, a Working Group can form its own subcommittees within itself. > I don't think this statement is obviously true. The current bylaws define these "subcommittees" (called Working Groups) - the new

Re: [cabfpub] Pre-Ballot 206 - Amendment to IPR Policy & Bylaws re Working Group Formation

lto:public-boun...@cabforum.org>] On Behalf Of Virginia Fournier via Public Sent: Thursday, January 18, 2018 5:14 PM To: CA/Browser Forum Public Discussion List <public@cabforum.org <mailto:public@cabforum.org>> Subject: Re: [cabfpub] Pre-Ballot 206 - Amendment to IPR Policy &

Re: [cabfpub] Pre-Ballot 206 - Amendment to IPR Policy & Bylaws re Working Group Formation

] Sent: Thursday, January 18, 2018 6:33 PM To: Tim Hollebeek <tim.holleb...@digicert.com> Cc: CA/Browser Forum Public Discussion List <public@cabforum.org> Subject: Re: [cabfpub] Pre-Ballot 206 - Amendment to IPR Policy & Bylaws re Working Group Formation Just to clarify, there

Re: [cabfpub] Pre-Ballot 206 - Amendment to IPR Policy & Bylaws re Working Group Formation

On 19/01/18 01:32, Virginia Fournier via Public wrote: > *All of the above 5 WGs would be individual, independent, separate > groups and would not be subcommittees, subgroups, ancillaries, or > subordinates of any other group.* The (current) work of e.g. the Validation WG is clearly a subset of

Re: [cabfpub] Pre-Ballot 206 - Amendment to IPR Policy & Bylaws re Working Group Formation

orum.org> Subject: Re: [cabfpub] Pre-Ballot 206 - Amendment to IPR Policy & Bylaws re Working Group Formation Tim raises a good question below, regarding whether legacy working groups and newly-approved working groups should both be called “working groups.” Maybe we should make a clear

Re: [cabfpub] Pre-Ballot 206 - Amendment to IPR Policy & Bylaws re Working Group Formation

Of Virginia Fournier via Public Sent: Thursday, January 18, 2018 5:14 PM To: CA/Browser Forum Public Discussion List <public@cabforum.org> Subject: Re: [cabfpub] Pre-Ballot 206 - Amendment to IPR Policy & Bylaws re Working Group Formation Tim raises a good question below, regarding whet

Re: [cabfpub] Pre-Ballot 206 - Amendment to IPR Policy & Bylaws re Working Group Formation

ssion List <public@cabforum.org> Subject: Re: [cabfpub] Pre-Ballot 206 - Amendment to IPR Policy & Bylaws re Working Group Formation Message-ID:

Re: [cabfpub] Pre-Ballot 206 - Amendment to IPR Policy & Bylaws re Working Group Formation

<tim.holleb...@digicert.com> Cc: CA/Browser Forum Public Discussion List <public@cabforum.org> Subject: Re: [cabfpub] Pre-Ballot 206 - Amendment to IPR Policy & Bylaws re Working Group Formation On Mon, Jan 15, 2018 at 7:56 AM, Tim Hollebeek <tim.holleb...@digicert.com

Re: [cabfpub] Pre-Ballot 206 - Amendment to IPR Policy & Bylaws re Working Group Formation

On Mon, Jan 15, 2018 at 7:56 AM, Tim Hollebeek wrote: > > What are we going to do about continuity of existing working groups (old > terminology, not new)? Is it necessary for the Server Certificate Working > Group Charter to say anything about sub-working groups (I

Re: [cabfpub] Pre-Ballot 206 - Amendment to IPR Policy & Bylaws re Working Group Formation

> Bylaws: > - (nit) Section 2.2(a) ends Forum membership when the party is not a member > of any working group, so we’d better not accidentally allow every WG to > expire. There are a bunch of us who believe expiration dates only make sense for task-, problem-, or goal- based working groups,

Re: [cabfpub] Pre-Ballot 206 - Amendment to IPR Policy & Bylaws re Working Group Formation

Thank you Ben, Virginia, and WG members for all your hard work to get us to this point. I reviewed these documents and have just a few comments: My main question is about our bi-weekly teleconference. In Ben’s latest draft Server Certificate WG charter, this call appears to be defined as a Server

Re: [cabfpub] Pre-Ballot 206 - Amendment to IPR Policy & Bylaws re Working Group Formation

Here is a revised draft. From: Public [mailto:public-boun...@cabforum.org] On Behalf Of Dimitris Zacharopoulos via Public Sent: Thursday, January 11, 2018 8:53 AM To: CA/Browser Forum Public Discussion List <public@cabforum.org> Subject: Re: [cabfpub] Pre-Ballot 206 - Amendment to IPR

Re: [cabfpub] Pre-Ballot 206 - Amendment to IPR Policy & Bylaws re Working Group Formation

I filled the attached in the governance WG on Tuesday about the Server Certificate Working Group Charter, which didn't make it in the version distributed by Ben. These are some comments for definitions of Application Software Suppliers and Qualified Auditors. I also think we need to update the