On Thu, Mar 7, 2019 at 12:09 AM Benjamin Gabriel via dev-security-policy < dev-security-policy@lists.mozilla.org> wrote:
> A fair and transparent public discussion requires full disclosure of each > participant's motivations and ultimate agenda. Whether in CABForum, or > Mozilla-dev-security-policy, I represent the viewpoints of my employer > DarkMatter and passionately believe in our unflagging efforts to provide > the citizens, residents and visitors to the United Arab Emirates with the > same internet security and privacy protections that are taken for granted > in other parts of the world. > > On Wednesday, March 6, 2019 7:51 PM, Ryan Sleevi wrote: > > (Writing in a personal capacity) > > Until such time as we have been formally advised by your employer > (Google), that you no longer represent their views in CABForum, or in this > Mozilla-dev-security-policy forum, we will proceed on the basis that all of > your statements are the official viewpoint of your employer (Google). > Benjamin, This statement is at odds with how the mozilla.dev.security.policy group works. Many people who are active in the Mozilla community, both in this group and others, do so independently of their employer. I think it is safe to assume that the majority of people you will meet in the Mozilla community have paid employment; those employers may or may not be involved with Mozilla. When participants make it clear they are writing in a personal capacity, or when they explicitly state they are representing their employer, then that is what we as fellow participants should accept. There is a page on the Mozilla wiki ( https://wiki.mozilla.org/CA/Policy_Participants ) that has a list of common participants and whether they are speaking for anyone else. I will not that in this specific email, to be clear, I am writing in a personal capacity. I have not discussed this with anyone else at my employer and my employer may not even agree with what is in this email. Or they may. I simply do not know and would have to ask someone who is in a position to represent my employer to find out. This is what I mean when I say I'm writing in a personal capacity. > sovereign nations have the fundamental right to provide digital services > to their own citizens, utilizing their own national root, without being > held hostage by a provider situated in another nation. You should note > that DarkMatter's request is also for the inclusion of UAE's national root. > > Benjamin Gabriel > General Counsel > Dark Matter Group > > > Benjamin Gabriel | General Counsel & SVP Legal > I think this is a great example of why it is important to be clear on who you are speaking for when participating in public groups. As per Kathleen's post (which was clear it was posted in her role as a Mozilla module owner), this discussion is about the subordinate CAs which Dark Matter operates. It was my impression that these are operated on a commercial basis by one of the Dark Matter Group of companies and you are writing as a representative of the Dark Matter Group. You then raise that DarkMatter is also requesting inclusion of the United Arab Emirates national root. This would appear to imply that DarkMatter is also acting as a representative of the Government of the UAE. We have seen other governments use privately owned contractors to help operate their national PKIs and these contractors have participated in the Mozilla groups. Can you please clarify if you are speaking for Dark Matter as a commercial entity or if you are speaking for the Government of the UAE? Thanks, Peter _______________________________________________ dev-security-policy mailing list dev-security-policy@lists.mozilla.org https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-security-policy
