Re: [Infrastructure] SC70 exclusion notice filled

[Inigo Barreira via Infrastructure]

Thanks for the info, Dimitris. You´re right. Everything´s crystal clear.
Next time I will post in the right email.



De: Dimitris Zacharopoulos (HARICA) 
Enviado el: martes, 26 de marzo de 2024 11:47
Para: Inigo Barreira ; Dean Coclin
; Ben Wilson via Infrastructure

Asunto: Re: [Infrastructure] SC70 exclusion notice filled



CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not
click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the
content is safe.





On 26/3/2024 10:39 π.μ., Inigo Barreira wrote:

Yes and no.


I don't understand how you gave this interpretation. Your email is out of
scope of the infrastructure SC charter
<https://nam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fcabforum.
org%2Fabout%2Finformation%2Finfrastructure-committee%2F=05%7C02%7CInigo
.Barreira%40sectigo.com%7C5dda5651f8074cf03ccb08dc4d82126f%7C0e9c48946caa465
d96604b6968b49fb7%7C0%7C0%7C638470468293476241%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWI
joiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C
data=44zXIUKzY3xyzOsTxFx6loR0JHPwKpL10XbeqrYzZZs%3D=0> . However, I
will try to answer your questions as best as I can.




As indicated at the beginning I know this topic is not related to the
infrastructure group as such,


Exactly.




but there are things that need to be discussed, like templates, change the
bylaws (i.e., which public group?


Discussions for changing the Bylaws must take place at the forum-level
public mailing list. The infrastructure SC is more oriented to technical
tasks, not policy. It cannot answer questions about possible interpretations
of the Bylaws. We have the Forum-level public list for that.

The last part (i.e., which public group) is not very clear to me. What is
the concern or the question?




The WG or the forum public list?), PAG formation (at the WG level or
general?)


If this is a question for how to interpret the Bylaws or the IPR policy, it
needs to be asked at the Forum-level public list.




, wiki info, etc.


I am not sure I understand what you mean by "wiki info".




This is just a list of things to discuss, and not all these are for the
infrastructure (for example, the change of the bylaws if needed) but some
can be considered as a new adding to the handbook to know how to deal with
these matters.


Since the infrastructure SC is a subset the Forum-level, a simple way to
approach this is that if you have a list of questions, out of which some are
in scope of the infrastructure SC and some are not, you must send all the
questions to the Forum-level list. This will give the opportunity for all
Members (including the infrastructure SC members) to discuss these questions
in one mailing list.

If you are not certain whether a question is or is not in scope of the
infrastructure SC, you can "fail-close" and send to the Forum-level list.

Does that clarify things at least about the scoping of the WGs/SCs?


Thanks,
Dimitris.







De: Dimitris Zacharopoulos (HARICA)  <mailto:dzach...@harica.gr>

Enviado el: lunes, 25 de marzo de 2024 21:31
Para: Dean Coclin  <mailto:dean.coc...@digicert.com>
; Inigo Barreira
<mailto:inigo.barre...@sectigo.com> ; Ben Wilson
via Infrastructure  <mailto:infrastructure@cabforum.org>

Asunto: Re: [Infrastructure] SC70 exclusion notice filled



CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not
click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the
content is safe.




These matters should be discussed at the respective WG. The Infrastructure
subcommittee is not related with this exclusion notice.

Inigo, I suggest you forward these messages to the servercert-wg mailing
list and continue the discussion there.


Thank you,
Dimitris.




On 25/3/2024 9:24 μ.μ., Dean Coclin via Infrastructure wrote:

I think those conclusions have to come from the PAG and unfortunately, not
you. They may come to the same conclusions, but it’s better to be done that
way.



I would suggest convening a PAG post haste and work through the issues at
hand.


Dean











From: Infrastructure  <mailto:infrastructure-boun...@cabforum.org>
 On Behalf Of Inigo Barreira via
Infrastructure
Sent: Monday, March 25, 2024 8:05 AM
To: Ben Wilson via Infrastructure  <mailto:infrastructure@cabforum.org>

Subject: [Infrastructure] SC70 exclusion notice filled



Hi all,



I´m sending this email to this group, knowing that this is maybe not the
right group to discuss this (I didn´t want to send it first to the
management list) but in where we have at least a lawyer (Ben) and an
“interested party” which could be Wayne as he´s listed in the patents
even not working now for GoDaddy.



The issue is, as you have read in the email sent to the public list, that an
exclusion notice has been filled against ballot SC70. And I have some
questions, some regarding the procedure and some others regarding the
exclusion notice itself and what 

[Infrastructure] Ballot SC70 results

[Inigo Barreira via Infrastructure]

Hi,

 

Due to the new situation of the ballot SC70, how should we address the
status of the ballot in the members tool and/or the google sheet?

 

On the members tool, we have all these options for ballots: passed, failed,
cancelled, voting period, discussion period, new and pre-ballot but there´s
no status for this situation. 

In the google sheet, there´s no such options but need to clarify what we can
indicate in that cell. 

 

Another question is if all votes are automatically rescinded and deemed null
and void, should we remove those votes from the tool and the sheet? Should
we leave them for some historical purposes?

 

Regards



smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
___
Infrastructure mailing list
Infrastructure@cabforum.org
https://lists.cabforum.org/mailman/listinfo/infrastructure

Re: [Infrastructure] SC70 exclusion notice filled

[Inigo Barreira via Infrastructure]

Thanks Dean. Yes, that´s the idea and it has been included as the only topic
for the Thursday call (unfortunately I won´t attend it and I think Kiran
will run it).

 

De: Dean Coclin  
Enviado el: lunes, 25 de marzo de 2024 20:24
Para: Inigo Barreira ; Ben Wilson via
Infrastructure 
Asunto: RE: SC70 exclusion notice filled

 

I think those conclusions have to come from the PAG and unfortunately, not
you. They may come to the same conclusions, but it’s better to be done that
way.

 

I would suggest convening a PAG post haste and work through the issues at
hand.


Dean 

 

 

 

 

 

From: Infrastructure mailto:infrastructure-boun...@cabforum.org> > On Behalf Of Inigo Barreira
via Infrastructure
Sent: Monday, March 25, 2024 8:05 AM
To: Ben Wilson via Infrastructure mailto:infrastructure@cabforum.org> >
Subject: [Infrastructure] SC70 exclusion notice filled

 

Hi all,

 

I´m sending this email to this group, knowing that this is maybe not the
right group to discuss this (I didn´t want to send it first to the
management list) but in where we have at least a lawyer (Ben) and an
“interested party” which could be Wayne as he´s listed in the patents even
not working now for GoDaddy.

 

The issue is, as you have read in the email sent to the public list, that an
exclusion notice has been filled against ballot SC70. And I have some
questions, some regarding the procedure and some others regarding the
exclusion notice itself and what we have in the wiki.

 

As per the bylaws, section 2.4, item 9 (emphasis mine):

 

1.  If Exclusion Notice(s) are filed during the Review Period (as
described in Section 4.3 of the IPR Policy), then the results of the Initial
Vote are automatically rescinded and deemed null and void, and;

a. A Patent Advisory Group (PAG) will be formed, in accordance with Section
7 of the IPR Policy, to address the conflict. The PAG will make a conclusion
as described in Section 7.3.2 of the IPR Policy, and communicate such
conclusion to the rest of the Forum, using the Member Mail List and the
Public Mail List; and

b. After the PAG provides its conclusion, if the proposer and endorsers
decide to proceed with the Draft Guidelines Ballot, and:

1.  The proposer and endorsers do not make any changes to the Draft
Guidelines Ballot, such ballot must go through the steps described in
Sections 2.4(2) through (4) above, replacing the “Initial Vote” with a
“Second Vote.” If a Draft Guidelines Ballot passes the Second Vote, then the
results of the Second Vote are deemed to be final and approved. Draft
Guidelines then become either Final Guidelines or Final Maintenance
Guidelines, as designated in the Draft Guidelines Ballot. The Chair will
notify the Public Mail List of the approval, as well as update the public
website of Final Guidelines and Final Maintenance Guidelines; or
2.  The proposer and endorsers make changes to the Draft Guidelines
Ballot, a new Draft Guidelines Ballot must be proposed, and must go through
the steps described in Sections 2.3(1) through (9) above.

So, independently of the exclusion notice, the ballot is considered null,
there´s no new TLS BRs version and a PAG need to be formed. I added this
topic to the WG call agenda for next Thursday (I won´t be running the call
because I´m on holidays for Easter) and I was going to send an email to the
SC public list indicating that the ballot is null (BTW, we don´t have any
kind of template to make such communication). Is this the right
interpretation of the bylaws?

OTOH, about the exclusion notice itself. This is what I´ve found that would
like to share.

*   This exclusion notice contains 7 patents

*   #1 (Method for a web site with a proxy domain name registration to
receive a secure socket layer certificate): Created in 2004 (there were no
BRs at that time), granted in 2010 and expires in 2017
*   #2 (Digital identity registration): Created in 2010, granted in 2011
and expires in 2027
*   #3 (Methods and systems for dynamic updates of digital certificates
via subscription): Created in 2004 (there were no BRs at that time), granted
in 2013 and expires in 2030
*   #4 (Website secure certificate status determination via partner
browser plugin): Created in 2010, granted in 2015 and expires in 2033
*   #5 (Systems for determining website secure certificate status via
partner browser plugin): Created in 2010, granted in 2015 and expires in
2033
*   #6 (Determining website secure certificate status via partner
browser plugin) : Created in 2015, granted in 2017 and expires in 2031
*   #7 (Method and system for managing secure custom domains): Created
in 2017, granted in 2018 and expires in 2037. This was initially filed and
assigned to Lantirn INC and later to the Bank of Canada. GoDaddy is not
listed anywhere.

*   All these 7 patents include a “no license granted” under column
License Grant Election Made
*   All of them make a reference to the EVGs, but ballot SC70 do

Re: [Infrastructure] SC70 exclusion notice filled

[Inigo Barreira via Infrastructure]

Yes and no. As indicated at the beginning I know this topic is not related
to the infrastructure group as such, but there are things that need to be
discussed, like templates, change the bylaws (i.e., which public group? The
WG or the forum public list?), PAG formation (at the WG level or general?),
wiki info, etc.

This is just a list of things to discuss, and not all these are for the
infrastructure (for example, the change of the bylaws if needed) but some
can be considered as a new adding to the handbook to know how to deal with
these matters.





De: Dimitris Zacharopoulos (HARICA) 
Enviado el: lunes, 25 de marzo de 2024 21:31
Para: Dean Coclin ; Inigo Barreira
; Ben Wilson via Infrastructure

Asunto: Re: [Infrastructure] SC70 exclusion notice filled



CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not
click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the
content is safe.




These matters should be discussed at the respective WG. The Infrastructure
subcommittee is not related with this exclusion notice.

Inigo, I suggest you forward these messages to the servercert-wg mailing
list and continue the discussion there.


Thank you,
Dimitris.



On 25/3/2024 9:24 μ.μ., Dean Coclin via Infrastructure wrote:

I think those conclusions have to come from the PAG and unfortunately, not
you. They may come to the same conclusions, but it’s better to be done that
way.



I would suggest convening a PAG post haste and work through the issues at
hand.


Dean











From: Infrastructure  <mailto:infrastructure-boun...@cabforum.org>
 On Behalf Of Inigo Barreira via
Infrastructure
Sent: Monday, March 25, 2024 8:05 AM
To: Ben Wilson via Infrastructure  <mailto:infrastructure@cabforum.org>

Subject: [Infrastructure] SC70 exclusion notice filled



Hi all,



I´m sending this email to this group, knowing that this is maybe not the
right group to discuss this (I didn´t want to send it first to the
management list) but in where we have at least a lawyer (Ben) and an
“interested party” which could be Wayne as he´s listed in the patents
even not working now for GoDaddy.



The issue is, as you have read in the email sent to the public list, that an
exclusion notice has been filled against ballot SC70. And I have some
questions, some regarding the procedure and some others regarding the
exclusion notice itself and what we have in the wiki.



As per the bylaws, section 2.4, item 9 (emphasis mine):



1.  If Exclusion Notice(s) are filed during the Review Period (as
described in Section 4.3 of the IPR Policy), then the results of the Initial
Vote are automatically rescinded and deemed null and void, and;

a. A Patent Advisory Group (PAG) will be formed, in accordance with Section
7 of the IPR Policy, to address the conflict. The PAG will make a conclusion
as described in Section 7.3.2 of the IPR Policy, and communicate such
conclusion to the rest of the Forum, using the Member Mail List and the
Public Mail List; and

b. After the PAG provides its conclusion, if the proposer and endorsers
decide to proceed with the Draft Guidelines Ballot, and:

1.  The proposer and endorsers do not make any changes to the Draft
Guidelines Ballot, such ballot must go through the steps described in
Sections 2.4(2) through (4) above, replacing the “Initial Vote” with a
“Second Vote.” If a Draft Guidelines Ballot passes the Second Vote, then
the results of the Second Vote are deemed to be final and approved. Draft
Guidelines then become either Final Guidelines or Final Maintenance
Guidelines, as designated in the Draft Guidelines Ballot. The Chair will
notify the Public Mail List of the approval, as well as update the public
website of Final Guidelines and Final Maintenance Guidelines; or
2.  The proposer and endorsers make changes to the Draft Guidelines
Ballot, a new Draft Guidelines Ballot must be proposed, and must go through
the steps described in Sections 2.3(1) through (9) above.

So, independently of the exclusion notice, the ballot is considered null,
there´s no new TLS BRs version and a PAG need to be formed. I added this
topic to the WG call agenda for next Thursday (I won´t be running the call
because I´m on holidays for Easter) and I was going to send an email to the
SC public list indicating that the ballot is null (BTW, we don´t have any
kind of template to make such communication). Is this the right
interpretation of the bylaws?

OTOH, about the exclusion notice itself. This is what I´ve found that would
like to share.

1.  This exclusion notice contains 7 patents

1.  #1 (Method for a web site with a proxy domain name registration to
receive a secure socket layer certificate): Created in 2004 (there were no
BRs at that time), granted in 2010 and expires in 2017
2.  #2 (Digital identity registration): Created in 2010, granted in 2011
and expires in 2027
3.  #3 (Methods and systems for dynamic updates of digital certificates
via subscripti

[Infrastructure] SC70 exclusion notice filled

[Inigo Barreira via Infrastructure]

Hi all,

 

I´m sending this email to this group, knowing that this is maybe not the
right group to discuss this (I didn´t want to send it first to the
management list) but in where we have at least a lawyer (Ben) and an
“interested party” which could be Wayne as he´s listed in the patents even
not working now for GoDaddy.

 

The issue is, as you have read in the email sent to the public list, that an
exclusion notice has been filled against ballot SC70. And I have some
questions, some regarding the procedure and some others regarding the
exclusion notice itself and what we have in the wiki.

 

As per the bylaws, section 2.4, item 9 (emphasis mine):

 

1.  If Exclusion Notice(s) are filed during the Review Period (as
described in Section 4.3 of the IPR Policy), then the results of the Initial
Vote are automatically rescinded and deemed null and void, and;

a. A Patent Advisory Group (PAG) will be formed, in accordance with Section
7 of the IPR Policy, to address the conflict. The PAG will make a conclusion
as described in Section 7.3.2 of the IPR Policy, and communicate such
conclusion to the rest of the Forum, using the Member Mail List and the
Public Mail List; and

b. After the PAG provides its conclusion, if the proposer and endorsers
decide to proceed with the Draft Guidelines Ballot, and:

1.  The proposer and endorsers do not make any changes to the Draft
Guidelines Ballot, such ballot must go through the steps described in
Sections 2.4(2) through (4) above, replacing the “Initial Vote” with a
“Second Vote.” If a Draft Guidelines Ballot passes the Second Vote, then the
results of the Second Vote are deemed to be final and approved. Draft
Guidelines then become either Final Guidelines or Final Maintenance
Guidelines, as designated in the Draft Guidelines Ballot. The Chair will
notify the Public Mail List of the approval, as well as update the public
website of Final Guidelines and Final Maintenance Guidelines; or
2.  The proposer and endorsers make changes to the Draft Guidelines
Ballot, a new Draft Guidelines Ballot must be proposed, and must go through
the steps described in Sections 2.3(1) through (9) above.

So, independently of the exclusion notice, the ballot is considered null,
there´s no new TLS BRs version and a PAG need to be formed. I added this
topic to the WG call agenda for next Thursday (I won´t be running the call
because I´m on holidays for Easter) and I was going to send an email to the
SC public list indicating that the ballot is null (BTW, we don´t have any
kind of template to make such communication). Is this the right
interpretation of the bylaws?

OTOH, about the exclusion notice itself. This is what I´ve found that would
like to share.

*   This exclusion notice contains 7 patents

*   #1 (Method for a web site with a proxy domain name registration to
receive a secure socket layer certificate): Created in 2004 (there were no
BRs at that time), granted in 2010 and expires in 2017
*   #2 (Digital identity registration): Created in 2010, granted in 2011
and expires in 2027
*   #3 (Methods and systems for dynamic updates of digital certificates
via subscription): Created in 2004 (there were no BRs at that time), granted
in 2013 and expires in 2030
*   #4 (Website secure certificate status determination via partner
browser plugin): Created in 2010, granted in 2015 and expires in 2033
*   #5 (Systems for determining website secure certificate status via
partner browser plugin): Created in 2010, granted in 2015 and expires in
2033
*   #6 (Determining website secure certificate status via partner
browser plugin) : Created in 2015, granted in 2017 and expires in 2031
*   #7 (Method and system for managing secure custom domains): Created
in 2017, granted in 2018 and expires in 2037. This was initially filed and
assigned to Lantirn INC and later to the Bank of Canada. GoDaddy is not
listed anywhere.

*   All these 7 patents include a “no license granted” under column
License Grant Election Made
*   All of them make a reference to the EVGs, but ballot SC70 does not
touch the EVGs but the TLS BRs
*   In the wiki

IPR Policy Exclusion N... | CABF Wiki (cabforum.org), there´re some
exclusion notices filled but:

*   Patent #1 declared in this PDF is already listed in the wiki but
with a slightly different number but under “willing to license” it says
“unstated”. 


  GoDaddy

31-July-2012

US Pat. No.7,702,902

Unspecified

Method for a web site with a proxy domain name registration to receive a
secure socket layer certificate

Unstated

*   Regarding the other patents I think those are new ones.
*   In the wiki list, there are some repeated (i.e., Generating PKI
email accounts on a web-based email system) with different patent numbers,
which I don´t know if it´s an error or on 

[Infrastructure] Google doc for the CABF Handbook

[Inigo Barreira via Infrastructure]

Hi all,

 

See this link:

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1GfisFGuFKFeY4kHr08zsQks1GwpRVyn2Gl6-eGSD
mOw/edit?usp=sharing

 

It´s a Google doc with what was shared initially in the email. It´s just a
very first draft of a framework with the basics to handle to all
new/old/potential responsible people in order to have it all in on document
and organized.

Some of these sections are already covered and some maybe need
adjustments/updates/clarifications. Feel free to add anything that is
correct and move the document where you think suits better.

 

Regards



smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
___
Infrastructure mailing list
Infrastructure@cabforum.org
https://lists.cabforum.org/mailman/listinfo/infrastructure

[Infrastructure] Key factor update

[Inigo Barreira via Infrastructure]

Hi there,

 

I´m trying to update KeyFactor from interested party to Associate member in
the members tool, but when update that, then asks me to fill the “IPR
agreement URL” (this field is empty in many organizations) and when going to
the Interested party agreements, here
 Interested Party IPR A... | CABF Wiki (cabforum.org), the link
to Keyfactor does not work and don´t know where their IPR agreement signed
is. Can anyone help me?

 

Regards



smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
___
Infrastructure mailing list
Infrastructure@cabforum.org
https://lists.cabforum.org/mailman/listinfo/infrastructure

[Infrastructure] Ballots part 3: releasing updates

[Inigo Barreira via Infrastructure]

Hi all,

 

In the Wiki dev, ballots part 3 was empty, no instructions, so today with
the help of Martijn, this section has been updated. In a very basic form
without any picture nor screenshots. 

Please, make the correspondent changes/updates or send suggestions on how to
improve this section, if needed.

 

See the current content
 Ballots part 3: Releas... | CABF Dev (cabforum.org)

 

Regards



smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
___
Infrastructure mailing list
Infrastructure@cabforum.org
https://lists.cabforum.org/mailman/listinfo/infrastructure

[Infrastructure] RV: [cabfquest] Membership Application of Common Crypto Authority

[Inigo Barreira via Infrastructure]

All,

 

This is what I´ve just indicated at the F2F. And it´s in relation to allow 
Interested Parties to the wiki, because if so, then no need to send another 
invitation. They have the Webex info and then may join if they want, and we´re 
not checking if this attendee is an IP or a full member.

But at the end, the only difference is that they can´t vote.

 

Regards

De: Wayne Thayer  
Enviado el: lunes, 5 de febrero de 2024 21:29
Para: Inigo Barreira 
Asunto: Re: [cabfquest] Membership Application of Common Crypto Authority

 

CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click 
links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content 
is safe.

 

Hi Inigo, 

 

I've given Troy Posting rights on the servercert-wg mailing list.

 

I'm not clear on allowing Interested Parties to attend the teleconferences. The 
Forum Bylaws say they must be invited to Forum teleconferences by the Chair, 
but the SCWG Charter is silent on the matter. I believe IPs should be able to 
attend SCWG meetings without a special invitation, but since we use the same 
meeting for both SCWG and Forum, the rules aren't so clear.

 

If Troy should be allowed to attend the SCWG teleconferences, then someone will 
need to send the WebEx info to him because IPs do not get wiki access.

 

Thanks,

 

Wayne

 

On Mon, Feb 5, 2024 at 3:07 AM Inigo Barreira mailto:inigo.barre...@sectigo.com> > wrote:

Wayne, please, can you grant whatever access Troy may need for the SCWG?

 

Regards

 

De: Inigo Barreira 
Enviado el: lunes, 5 de febrero de 2024 12:06
Para: troy anderson mailto:trand...@ccauth.org> >; 
questi...@cabforum.org  
Asunto: RE: [cabfquest] Membership Application of Common Crypto Authority

 

Hi Troy,

 

In the last SCWG meeting, it was agreed to include you as an Interested Party 
also for the Servercert working group.

 

Regards

 

De: Questions mailto:questions-boun...@cabforum.org> > En nombre de troy anderson via 
Questions
Enviado el: jueves, 18 de enero de 2024 18:36
Para: questi...@cabforum.org  
Asunto: [cabfquest] Membership Application of Common Crypto Authority

 

CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click 
links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content 
is safe.

 

thank you for reviewing my application to become an 'Interested Party' to the 
following Working Groups of the CA/Browser forum.   

 

if you require more information, please feel free to contact me. 

 

cheers,

Troy Anderson

 

= 

trand...@ccauth.org  

952-215-4775

 

 

a completed and signed IPR Policy Agreement: 
. attached
an indication of the Working Group(s) to which you are applying: 
. Server Certificate WG, Code Signing Certificate WG, S/MIME Certificate WG
organization name: 
. Common Crypto Authority (MN Statute 317A Domestic Non-Profit)
names and email addresses of employees who will participate on Forums:
. Troy Anderson, trand...@ccauth.org  
an indication of which of such employees will be authorized to vote on Forum 
and working group ballots:
. requesting 'Interested Party' only, no ballot voting
emergency contact information
. Troy Anderson, tranders.ccauth.org 

 , mobile 952-215-4775

 

 



smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
___
Infrastructure mailing list
Infrastructure@cabforum.org
https://lists.cabforum.org/mailman/listinfo/infrastructure

Re: [Infrastructure] Differences between Bylaws and SCWG charter

[Inigo Barreira via Infrastructure]

Sorry, I´m overloaded with all the work on the SCWG and was reading too
fast and didn´t do the “… Bylaws and section 3(a) …”

My bad.



Regards

De: Infrastructure  En nombre de
Dimitris Zacharopoulos (HARICA) via Infrastructure
Enviado el: jueves, 22 de febrero de 2024 17:40
Para: infrastructure@cabforum.org
Asunto: Re: [Infrastructure] Differences between Bylaws and SCWG charter



CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not
click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the
content is safe.



Inigo,

3(a) and 3(b) are referring to the SCWG Charter, not the Bylaws. BTW, the
Bylaws were recently updated (July 2023).

Dimitris.

On 22/2/2024 6:35 μ.μ., Inigo Barreira via Infrastructure wrote:

Hi,



Just realized, before sending the “formal” acceptance of a new member, and
now realizing that has to go under a probationary period of 6 months, that
when the charter indicates some of the sections of the Bylaws, these do not
exist in the bylaws as such. For example, it´s indicated to comply with
3(a) or 3(b), but there´s nothing with that number in the Bylaws.

I don´t know if this is due to the change to the new web because the
charter is from December and the bylaws hasn´t changed for some time, then
I´m wondering if that´s part of the migration.



Regards





___
Infrastructure mailing list
Infrastructure@cabforum.org <mailto:Infrastructure@cabforum.org>
https://lists.cabforum.org/mailman/listinfo/infrastructure
<https://nam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Flists.cab
forum.org%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Finfrastructure=05%7C02%7Cinigo.barreir
a%40sectigo.com%7Cb8741722930841bd490608dc33c4e17d%7C0e9c48946caa465d96604b6
968b49fb7%7C0%7C0%7C638442167894505918%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wL
jAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C=MWv
wJwJ9RdyjbV0%2FeUf05TBSFnt8REtCLMaR1TWl3Go%3D=0>





smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
___
Infrastructure mailing list
Infrastructure@cabforum.org
https://lists.cabforum.org/mailman/listinfo/infrastructure

[Infrastructure] Differences between Bylaws and SCWG charter

[Inigo Barreira via Infrastructure]

Hi,

 

Just realized, before sending the “formal” acceptance of a new member, and
now realizing that has to go under a probationary period of 6 months, that
when the charter indicates some of the sections of the Bylaws, these do not
exist in the bylaws as such. For example, it´s indicated to comply with 3(a)
or 3(b), but there´s nothing with that number in the Bylaws.

I don´t know if this is due to the change to the new web because the charter
is from December and the bylaws hasn´t changed for some time, then I´m
wondering if that´s part of the migration.

 

Regards



smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
___
Infrastructure mailing list
Infrastructure@cabforum.org
https://lists.cabforum.org/mailman/listinfo/infrastructure

Re: [Infrastructure] Vote tracking excel

[Inigo Barreira via Infrastructure]

And also needs an update, not only regarding the new chapter requirements, but 
also regarding “old” organizations. For example, I see in the browsers side 
Brave, Comodo, … and in the CAs, Network Solutions, Prvni, …

But don´t know how to do that update. It´s not clear on how to or when start 
applying the new charter, organizations that never/barely showed up, …

Or maybe do nothing.

 

De: Infrastructure  En nombre de Dimitris 
Zacharopoulos (HARICA) via Infrastructure
Enviado el: miércoles, 21 de febrero de 2024 16:56
Para: infrastructure@cabforum.org
Asunto: Re: [Infrastructure] Vote tracking excel

 

CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click 
links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content 
is safe.

 

I don't think the membership management tool processes all the votes as the 
Google spreadsheet. We still need to use both:

1.  The membership tool to check for the proper voting representatives
2.  the spreadsheet to calculate the rules according to the Bylaws (2/3, 
50%+1, Quorum, etc).

Dimitris.

 

On 21/2/2024 5:45 μ.μ., Dean Coclin via Infrastructure wrote:

We use the tool in the membership management portal now to track the votes.

 

Dean Coclin 

Sr. Director Business Development

M 1.781.789.8686

 



 

 

From: Infrastructure  <mailto:infrastructure-boun...@cabforum.org> 
 On Behalf Of Inigo Barreira via 
Infrastructure
Sent: Wednesday, February 21, 2024 7:48 AM
To: Ben Wilson via Infrastructure  <mailto:infrastructure@cabforum.org> 

Subject: [Infrastructure] Vote tracking excel

 

Hi all,

 

During today´s collection of votes for SC70 I´ve realized that the list of CAs 
and Browsers is out of date.

 
<https://nam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fdocs.google.com%2Fspreadsheets%2Fd%2F1FBsMZjlzyvK3mFR1u4qMqvZwlI86yJ-v0am1pCBo8uI%2Fedit%23gid%3D1202563089=05%7C02%7Cinigo.barreira%40sectigo.com%7C349ee7ef92c34c4408e308dc32f58b89%7C0e9c48946caa465d96604b6968b49fb7%7C0%7C0%7C638441277435870041%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C=pP1UuZAQj0Zg1lpZce6RcF3cDlWE3aAbqYs5GaO61Jg%3D=0>
 CAB Forum Voting - Ballot Tracker - Google Sheets

 

There´re CAs that no longer exist and more Browsers to add for example. And I 
haven´t considered the latest applications so the number can vary a bit more. I 
think it does not affect to the results of the ballots due to the number of CAs 
voting but the way the browser votes are counted can be an issue due to that 
50%+1.

 

Also would be good to know when to start reviewing the “participation” of the 
different members and look for suspensions. The new charter was approved and 
published in December (BTW, there´s no date on the new version 1.3 and no way 
to find old version, if that´s of interest) and don´t know when this is 
applicable.

 

Regards





___
Infrastructure mailing list
Infrastructure@cabforum.org <mailto:Infrastructure@cabforum.org> 
https://lists.cabforum.org/mailman/listinfo/infrastructure 
<https://nam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Flists.cabforum.org%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Finfrastructure=05%7C02%7Cinigo.barreira%40sectigo.com%7C349ee7ef92c34c4408e308dc32f58b89%7C0e9c48946caa465d96604b6968b49fb7%7C0%7C0%7C638441277435885782%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C=u%2BqziAhM1lhlvP38F%2BP0XTzBVs39HTThNoyT5j3vNYg%3D=0>
 

 



smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
___
Infrastructure mailing list
Infrastructure@cabforum.org
https://lists.cabforum.org/mailman/listinfo/infrastructure

Re: [Infrastructure] Vote tracking excel

[Inigo Barreira via Infrastructure]

But this does not know if for example the browsers voting has been the 50%
plus 1, it´s a manual process, right? At the end is used to copy/paste what
happened. 

That´s why I asked time ago in this group to clarify/decide what to do with
the google docs and what to do where and how. Right now, I think we
duplicate things because it´s not clear which one to use.

For example, I gave up using the excel for the quorum and use the membership
tool but maybe some other are still using/updating that spreadsheet.

It´s a bit frustrating.

 

Regards

 

De: Dean Coclin  
Enviado el: miércoles, 21 de febrero de 2024 16:45
Para: Inigo Barreira ; Ben Wilson via
Infrastructure 
Asunto: RE: Vote tracking excel

 

We use the tool in the membership management portal now to track the votes.

 

Dean Coclin 

Sr. Director Business Development

M 1.781.789.8686

 



 

 

From: Infrastructure mailto:infrastructure-boun...@cabforum.org> > On Behalf Of Inigo Barreira
via Infrastructure
Sent: Wednesday, February 21, 2024 7:48 AM
To: Ben Wilson via Infrastructure mailto:infrastructure@cabforum.org> >
Subject: [Infrastructure] Vote tracking excel

 

Hi all,

 

During today´s collection of votes for SC70 I´ve realized that the list of
CAs and Browsers is out of date.

 
<https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1FBsMZjlzyvK3mFR1u4qMqvZwlI86yJ-v0am
1pCBo8uI/edit#gid=1202563089> CAB Forum Voting - Ballot Tracker - Google
Sheets

 

There´re CAs that no longer exist and more Browsers to add for example. And
I haven´t considered the latest applications so the number can vary a bit
more. I think it does not affect to the results of the ballots due to the
number of CAs voting but the way the browser votes are counted can be an
issue due to that 50%+1.

 

Also would be good to know when to start reviewing the “participation” of
the different members and look for suspensions. The new charter was approved
and published in December (BTW, there´s no date on the new version 1.3 and
no way to find old version, if that´s of interest) and don´t know when this
is applicable.

 

Regards



smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
___
Infrastructure mailing list
Infrastructure@cabforum.org
https://lists.cabforum.org/mailman/listinfo/infrastructure

[Infrastructure] Vote tracking excel

[Inigo Barreira via Infrastructure]

Hi all,

 

During today´s collection of votes for SC70 I´ve realized that the list of
CAs and Browsers is out of date.

 
 CAB Forum Voting - Ballot Tracker - Google
Sheets

 

There´re CAs that no longer exist and more Browsers to add for example. And
I haven´t considered the latest applications so the number can vary a bit
more. I think it does not affect to the results of the ballots due to the
number of CAs voting but the way the browser votes are counted can be an
issue due to that 50%+1.

 

Also would be good to know when to start reviewing the “participation” of
the different members and look for suspensions. The new charter was approved
and published in December (BTW, there´s no date on the new version 1.3 and
no way to find old version, if that´s of interest) and don´t know when this
is applicable.

 

Regards



smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
___
Infrastructure mailing list
Infrastructure@cabforum.org
https://lists.cabforum.org/mailman/listinfo/infrastructure

[Infrastructure] Documents in the new website

[Inigo Barreira via Infrastructure]

Hi there,

 

In the new website there´s missing documents, at least, for the SCWG.

See here
 Baseline Requirements for TLS Server Certificates | CA/Browser Forum
(cabforum.org), the latest version, 2.0.2, based on SC66 is not there. Can
this be put it back to the website?

 

Regards



smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
___
Infrastructure mailing list
Infrastructure@cabforum.org
https://lists.cabforum.org/mailman/listinfo/infrastructure

[Infrastructure] RV: Google documents and WG handbook draft

[Inigo Barreira via Infrastructure]

Hi again,

 

This is what we´ve discussed at today´s call and am resending again for more 
visibility and be a starting point for a potential F2F discussion?

 

Regards

 

De: Infrastructure  En nombre de Inigo 
Barreira via Infrastructure
Enviado el: lunes, 18 de diciembre de 2023 12:49
Para: Infrastructure 
Asunto: [Infrastructure] Google documents and WG handbook draft

 

CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click 
links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content 
is safe.

 

Hi,

 

As discussed in the last call, see attached a document with the Google 
documents that I use more and a very first draft of a WG handbook. Feel free to 
add more documents or more sections to the doc.

 

Google documents

This is a list of the main documents that I use and that I could find but for 
example I couldn´t find easily the “membership change” doc in the wiki. Some of 
the information contained in these documents can be moved into the WG handbook 
and some other maybe move into the member tool.

 

WG handbook

This is a very simple Table of Contents (not even numbered) with the main 
actions/activities and some subsections according to what´s in the different 
google docs and what we usually do.

I´ve just left 3 levels and didn´t want to go more in detail and make it more 
difficult to read just for a first draft but of course that can be discussed. 
For sure when we start adding the content there could be additional levels 
up Let me know if this approach is ok and I will continue incorporating 
the content to the different sections and then can discuss more on the content 
than in the continent 

 

Regards



CABF Google Docs.docx
Description: MS-Word 2007 document


CABF Working Group Handbook.docx
Description: MS-Word 2007 document
___
Infrastructure mailing list
Infrastructure@cabforum.org
https://lists.cabforum.org/mailman/listinfo/infrastructure


smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
___
Infrastructure mailing list
Infrastructure@cabforum.org
https://lists.cabforum.org/mailman/listinfo/infrastructure

[Infrastructure] Google documents and WG handbook draft

[Inigo Barreira via Infrastructure]

Hi,



As discussed in the last call, see attached a document with the Google 
documents that I use more and a very first draft of a WG handbook. Feel free to 
add more documents or more sections to the doc.



Google documents

This is a list of the main documents that I use and that I could find but for 
example I couldn´t find easily the “membership change” doc in the wiki. Some of 
the information contained in these documents can be moved into the WG handbook 
and some other maybe move into the member tool.



WG handbook

This is a very simple Table of Contents (not even numbered) with the main 
actions/activities and some subsections according to what´s in the different 
google docs and what we usually do.

I´ve just left 3 levels and didn´t want to go more in detail and make it more 
difficult to read just for a first draft but of course that can be discussed. 
For sure when we start adding the content there could be additional levels 
up Let me know if this approach is ok and I will continue incorporating 
the content to the different sections and then can discuss more on the content 
than in the continent 



Regards



CABF Google Docs.docx
Description: CABF Google Docs.docx


CABF Working Group Handbook.docx
Description: CABF Working Group Handbook.docx
___
Infrastructure mailing list
Infrastructure@cabforum.org
https://lists.cabforum.org/mailman/listinfo/infrastructure

[Infrastructure] Update of "old" documents

[Inigo Barreira via Infrastructure]

Hi there,



Maybe of interest for tomorrow´s call.

While reviewing the application of TrustAsia, found this google doc with a 
checklist of what to do Checklist for New Member in SCWG/CAB Forum - Google 
Sheets

Do we need to update all these google docs? Have these implemented somehow in 
the member tool?

Another one could be the IPRs document, do we need to keep the old ones in the 
wiki? What to do when one organization/person changes status? For example, 
TrustAsia from associate member to full member?



Regards

___
Infrastructure mailing list
Infrastructure@cabforum.org
https://lists.cabforum.org/mailman/listinfo/infrastructure

Re: [Infrastructure] WordPress Instructions

[Inigo Barreira via Infrastructure]

+1. I think that list would be a good adding.

-Mensaje original-
De: Infrastructure  En nombre de Dimitris 
Zacharopoulos (HARICA) via Infrastructure
Enviado el: lunes, 27 de noviembre de 2023 11:59
Para: infrastructure@cabforum.org
Asunto: Re: [Infrastructure] WordPress Instructions

CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click 
links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content 
is safe.


Hi Ben, thank you for working on those instructions,

Except for the tags you have indicated, should we perhaps have a listing of the 
exact tags that should be used on each occasion? For example, when publishing 
minutes, there may be tasks to distinguish if the minutes are for a 
Teleconference or a Physical (F2F) Meeting.


Thanks,
Dimitris.

On 8/11/2023 11:57 μ.μ., Ben Wilson via Infrastructure wrote:
> Today I started to edit the WordPress instructions for the website and
> bring them up to date. (They're quite out-of-date.) I have provided a
> link to them on the wiki -
> https://wiki.cabforum.org/books/infrastructure/page/wordpress-instructions.
> If you'd like to help me edit them and need "edit" access, then please
> let me know.
> Thanks,
> Ben
>
> ___
> Infrastructure mailing list
> Infrastructure@cabforum.org
> https://list/
> s.cabforum.org%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Finfrastructure=05%7C01%7Cin
> igo.barreira%40sectigo.com%7Cf7f52e76a8174abb9df708dbef37e87c%7C0e9c48
> 946caa465d96604b6968b49fb7%7C0%7C0%7C638366795630643042%7CUnknown%7CTW
> FpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6
> Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C=3c8iDFBeFZI%2FoQfYbm5BEz6LqCQUfF0rnT1oids
> 6WnE%3D=0

___
Infrastructure mailing list
Infrastructure@cabforum.org
https://lists.cabforum.org/mailman/listinfo/infrastructure
___
Infrastructure mailing list
Infrastructure@cabforum.org
https://lists.cabforum.org/mailman/listinfo/infrastructure