<!DOCTYPE html><html><head><meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8"/></head><body style="font-family:Geneva,Helvetica,Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 12px;"><font color="#000000">> </font>If we're broadening the scope of the forum to encompass code signing, hardware<br />
> certificates, client certs, document signing, and so forth, I think the name<br />
> "CA/Browser Forum" isn't as useful any longer. Those are certainly the critical parties<br />
> when it comes to SSL/TLS for the Web, but there are a number of other groups that<br />
> get involved in each of those subgroups in place of—or alongside—browsers:<br />
> hardware manufacturers, software companies, and so forth. To that end, I'd propose<br />
> something more like "Digital Certificate Standards Forum", with subgroups under it for<br />
> each of the focus areas.<br />
<br />
True, we are in face of growing IoT industry which need certificates.<br />
<br />
Another possible names for new CA/B Forum:<br />
- Digital Security Certificates Forum.<br />
- Security Certificates Forum.<br />
- Digital Security Certificates <span style="font-family:helvetica neue,helvetica,arial,verdana,geneva,sans-serif; font-size:13.3194px">Consortium.</span><br />
<br />
<br />
--<br />
Kind regards,<br />
Aleksei Ivanov<br />
Managing Director<br />
LeaderTelecom<br />
<br />
16.05.2016 21:39 - Jos Purvis wrote:
<div style="border:none;border-left:solid blue 1.5pt;padding:0cm 0cm 0cm 4.0pt" type="cite"> </div>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<div>Some quick off-the-cuff responses to provide fodder for discussion:</div>
<div> </div>
<div>If we're broadening the scope of the forum to encompass code signing, hardware certificates, client certs, document signing, and so forth, I think the name "CA/Browser Forum" isn't as useful any longer. Those are certainly the critical parties when it comes to SSL/TLS for the Web, but there are a number of other groups that get involved in each of those subgroups in place of—or alongside—browsers: hardware manufacturers, software companies, and so forth. To that end, I'd propose something more like "Digital Certificate Standards Forum", with subgroups under it for each of the focus areas.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>I would further suggest the subgroups be titled "Forum", "Subcommittee", "Standards Group", or the like--"Working Group" suggests an ad-hoc formation like the PAG that might be disbanded, and thus might not be expected to have its own IPR and functional rules. That could be just me being overly language-specific, though. :)</div>
<div> </div>
<div>For the umbrella org (the "DCSF", if you will), I do think you would need some kind of leadership council/board of directors. I would avoid making two of them (too much bureaucratic overhead, too many meetings, too much potential for conflict), but instead make one with a set of standing officers and then representation from each of the subgroups. That leads to the question of whether the officers for that would be elected (and how) and under what sorts of terms.</div>
</div>
<div> </div>
<div>--Jos</div>
<div>
<div id="MAC_OUTLOOK_SIGNATURE">
<div>
<div> </div>
<div>-- </div>
<div><span style="font-family:consolas; font-size:11px">Jos Purvis (</span><a href="mailto:jopurvis@cisco.com" style="color: rgb(149, 79, 114); font-family: Consolas; font-size: 11px;" target="_blank">jopurvis@cisco.com</a><span style="font-family:consolas; font-size:11px">) | _.|._.|._ cisco systems</span><br />
<span style="font-family:consolas; font-size:11px">Cryptographic Compliance, Identity Assurance Services</span><br />
<span style="font-family:consolas; font-size:11px">+1 919.991.9114 (desk) | PGP: 0x89a3b545 / 0x07d19105</span></div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<div> </div>
<div>
<div>On 2016-May-16, 14:24, "<a href="mailto:govreform-bounces@cabforum.org" target="_blank">govreform-bounces@cabforum.org</a> on behalf of Ben Wilson" <<a href="mailto:govreform-bounces@cabforum.org" target="_blank">govreform-bounces@cabforum.org</a> on behalf of <a href="mailto:ben.wilson@digicert.com" target="_blank">ben.wilson@digicert.com</a>> wrote:</div>
</div>
<div> </div>
<div id="MAC_OUTLOOK_ATTRIBUTION_BLOCKQUOTE" style="BORDER-LEFT: #b5c4df 5 solid; PADDING:0 0 0 5; MARGIN:0 0 0 5;">
<div xmlns="http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40" xmlns:m="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/2004/12/omml" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:w="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word"> </div>
</div>
<!--[if !mso]><style>v\:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
o\:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
w\:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
.shape {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
</style><![endif]-->
<style type="text/css"><!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:"Cambria Math";
panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Calibri;
panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:#0563C1;
text-decoration:underline;}
a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:#954F72;
text-decoration:underline;}
p.msonormal0, li.msonormal0, div.msonormal0
{mso-style-name:msonormal;
mso-margin-top-alt:auto;
margin-right:0in;
mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;
margin-left:0in;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;}
span.EmailStyle18
{mso-style-type:personal-compose;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
color:windowtext;}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;
font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;}
@page WordSection1
{size:8.5in 11.0in;
margin:1.0in 1.0in 1.0in 1.0in;}
div.WordSection1
{page:WordSection1;}
-->
</style>
<!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapedefaults v:ext="edit" spidmax="1026" />
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapelayout v:ext="edit">
<o:idmap v:ext="edit" data="1" />
</o:shapelayout></xml><![endif]-->
<div lang="EN-US" link="#0563C1" vlink="#954F72">
<div>Prior to our face-to-face meeting next week, I think we have some preliminary matters that we should consider. <br />
<br />
For instance, do members prefer that the CA/B Forum remain the umbrella organization (if we’re going to have an umbrella organization). <br />
<br />
Or should a new umbrella organization be created? Consider these two diagrams:<br />
<img id="Picture_x0020_1" src="cid:image001.png@01D1AF6D.F6039120" style="height:2.5708in; width:9.3125in" /><img id="Picture_x0020_2" src="cid:image002.png@01D1AF6D.F6039120" style="height:2.5083in; width:10.0541in" /><br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
The names are just placeholders. Do we want to use “Forum”, “Working Group,” “Standing Committee”, “Subcommittee”, “Technical Committee”, etc?<br />
<br />
Should governance policies/procedures be documented outside of the Bylaws in a document titled “Rules of Association”, “Operating Procedures”, or similar?<br />
<br />
Should the umbrella organization have a Board of Directors/Trustees, Steering Committee, Leadership/Management Council, or similar? If so, should there be two such upper-level bodies (Board and a Council) with differing responsibilities?<br />
<br />
One reason for the approach taken above is that I am assuming we want committee/group structures with the ability of each committee/group to have a different IPR Policy. Thoughts on this? <br />
<br />
Thanks,<br />
<br />
Ben</div>
</div></body></html>