Re: [cabfpub] Draft Ballot Forum-4 for discussion

I what you wrote below is some people’s opinion, but it isn’t mine and it wasn’t the intent. The intent was that LWGs could just declare they wanted to become subcommittees, and they would be subcommittees. If people want ballots for LWG migrations (and it seems they do), I want the 216

Re: [cabfpub] Ballot SC6 v3 - Revocation Timeline Extension

Amazon votes YES on Ballot SC6 v3. From: Public [mailto:public-boun...@cabforum.org] On Behalf Of Wayne Thayer via Public Sent: Monday, September 10, 2018 11:54 AM To: CA/B Forum Server Certificate WG Public Discussion List Cc: CA/Browser Forum Public Discussion List Subject: Re: [cabfpub]

Re: [cabfpub] Draft Ballot Forum-4 for discussion

On 11/9/2018 5:57 μμ, Tim Hollebeek wrote: Thanks for read it. I’d rather not delay the ballot or make it more complicated.  There are several ballots that would be much easier to handle if the Ballot 216 rules were back in place, and that includes migrating Legacy WGs to subcommittees.

Re: [cabfpub] Forum Infrastructure Working Group: Initial Meeting and Declarations

Let’s add you, too, there is no reason why a WG (and email distribution list) can’t have more than one representative from a member. Also, for this WG, I don’t think we’ll be voting on anything, other than as recommendations for the Forum at large. From: Tim Hollebeek Sent: Tuesday,

Re: [cabfpub] Forum Infrastructure Working Group: Initial Meeting and Declarations

Me. I didn’t sign up on the wiki b/c DigiCert already joined through Ben’s signup. -Tim From: Public On Behalf Of Ben Wilson via Public Sent: Tuesday, September 11, 2018 9:00 AM To: CA/Browser Forum Public Discussion List ; Jos Purvis (jopurvis) Subject: Re: [cabfpub] Forum

Re: [cabfpub] Forum Infrastructure Working Group: Initial Meeting and Declarations

Just a reminder – Jos, Ryan, Wayne, Moudrick and Dimitris have signed up so far on the wiki for the Infrastructure WG. Other takers? From: Public On Behalf Of Ben Wilson via Public Sent: Friday, August 31, 2018 12:00 PM To: Jos Purvis (jopurvis) ; CA/Browser Forum Public

Re: [cabfpub] Draft Ballot Forum-4 for discussion

Thanks for read it. I’d rather not delay the ballot or make it more complicated. There are several ballots that would be much easier to handle if the Ballot 216 rules were back in place, and that includes migrating Legacy WGs to subcommittees. On the subject of obsolete text, there’s

Re: [cabfpub] Draft Ballot Forum-4 for discussion

On Tue, Sep 11, 2018 at 9:42 AM Dimitris Zacharopoulos via Public < public@cabforum.org> wrote: > Thanks Tim, the changes seem to be in order. I have two suggestions. > >1. Legacy WGs: If we delay this ballot for a couple of days and put it >for vote after October 3rd, the language around

Re: [cabfpub] Draft Ballot Forum-4 for discussion

Thanks Tim, the changes seem to be in order. I have two suggestions. 1. Legacy WGs: If we delay this ballot for a couple of days and put it for vote after October 3rd, the language around Legacy Working Groups will be obsolete. I think it makes sense to wait a few days, remove section

Re: [cabfpub] [Servercert-wg] Ballot SC6 v3 - Revocation Timeline Extension

QuoVadis votes yes on Ballot SC6. Regards, Stephen Davidson From: Public mailto:public-boun...@cabforum.org>> On Behalf Of Wayne Thayer via Public Sent: Monday, September 10, 2018 2:54 PM To: CA/B Forum Server Certificate WG Public Discussion List mailto:servercert...@cabforum.org>> Cc:

Re: [cabfpub] Ballot SC6 v3 - Revocation Timeline Extension

Izenpe votes YES on Ballot SC6 .eus gara ! horregatik orain nire helbide elektronikoa da: por eso mi dirección de correo electrónico ahora es: o-gar...@izenpe.eus Oscar García CISSP, CISM [Descripción: Descripción: firma_email_Izenpe_eus] ERNE! Baliteke mezu

Re: [cabfpub] Ballot SC6 v3 - Revocation Timeline Extension

GlobalSign votes yes on Ballot SC6. From: Public On Behalf Of Wayne Thayer via Public Sent: Monday, September 10, 2018 2:54 PM To: CA/B Forum Server Certificate WG Public Discussion List Cc: CA/Browser Forum Public Discussion List Subject: Re: [cabfpub] Ballot SC6 v3 - Revocation Timeline

[cabfpub] 答复: [Servercert-wg] Ballot SC6 v3 - Revocation Timeline Extension

GDCA votes YES on ballot SC6 v3. Thanks. _ Best regards, Xiu Lei Security Policy Committee Global Digital Cybersecurity Authority CO., LTD. (GDCA) http://www.gdca.com.cn 发件人: servercert-wg-boun...@cabforum.org

Re: [cabfpub] Ballot SC6 v3 - Revocation Timeline Extension

TWCA votes Yes to ballot SC6 v3. Robin Lin From: Public On Behalf Of Wayne Thayer via Public Sent: Tuesday, September 11, 2018 2:54 AM To: CA/B Forum Server Certificate WG Public Discussion List Cc: CA/Browser Forum Public Discussion List Subject: Re: [cabfpub] Ballot SC6 v3 - Revocation

Re: [cabfpub] Ballot SC6 v3 - Revocation Timeline Extension

AC Camerfirma SA votes yes on Ballot SC6. Ramiro Muñoz Muñoz AC Camerfirma SA. CTO, Exploitation Manager, CISA. +34 619 746 291 · rami...@camerfirma.com. https://www.linkedin.com/in/ramirom. == Ballot SC6 version 3: Revocation Timeline

Re: [cabfpub] [Servercert-wg] Ballot SC6 v3 - Revocation Timeline Extension

360 votes YES De: Servercert-wg [servercert-wg-boun...@cabforum.org] en nombre de Tim Hollebeek via Servercert-wg [servercert...@cabforum.org] Enviado: lunes, 10 de septiembre de 2018 21:15 Para: Wayne Thayer; CA/Browser Forum Public Discussion List; CA/B Forum