<html xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:w="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:m="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/2004/12/omml" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40"><head><META HTTP-EQUIV="Content-Type" CONTENT="text/html; charset=us-ascii"><meta name=Generator content="Microsoft Word 15 (filtered medium)"><style><!--
/* 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;}
span.EmailStyle17
{mso-style-type:personal-compose;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
color:windowtext;}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;
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]--></head><body lang=EN-US link="#0563C1" vlink="#954F72"><div class=WordSection1><p class=MsoNormal>Here are the notes from yesterday’s call:<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>Governance Reform Working Group<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>Notes from 7 June 2016<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>In attendance: JC Jones, Andrew Whalley, Ben Wilson, Virginia Fournier, Rich Smith, Peter Bowen, Patrick Tronnier, and Moudrick Dadashov <o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>Discussion of Goals and Objectives<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>Ben – One of the overarching, broader goals mentioned by Dean at the face-to-face meeting in Bilbao was greater participation/involvement of groups not currently involved in the Forum. That means we probably need to address criteria for membership and enlarge those to allow working groups to be created. Another goal is keeping it simple. We don’t want to create unnecessary rules, procedures, and structures, but instead edit the bylaws strategically. <o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>Peter – We have overlapping goals. While CA members want to expand scope, because CA/B Forum has been a good place to do industry self-regulation and there are areas like code signing where we’d like to work. The question is how do we expand scope without expanding membership and without forcing others to participate? We have to resolve that first before tackling an expanded membership. That’s why there was discussion on the list about moving to a participation model. There was some confusion about working group participation and what that meant, but Jeremy and Virginia have clarified what participation is. But we need to focus on how we can allow the scope of discussion to expand otherwise the discussion about new members is moot.<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>Andrew- I agree with control at the WG level, with a formal process to join or opt in, before becoming an official member of the working group. You could leave the WG when you wanted to, but when you enter the WG, you’d have to agree.<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>Peter – It’s similar to joining CA/B Forum today. A new member has to do a catchup evaluation before joining the Forum. That could work easily as well for working groups. So I think we have consensus on a working group model. So we should move to a W3C participation model—move the current IPR down to Working Group level so that all Forum guidelines would be pushed down to working group level. It would be good to get this down in writing and out there for others not on the call to review.<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>Ben – In my opinion the W3C does not have a good definition of “participate”, but they do have detailed procedures and clear steps on how someone becomes the participant in a working group, so there is an understanding within the W3C on what it means “to participate”. We could outline the steps, and maybe add a few phrases together for a definition of “participate” or “participant” in our IPR Policy and adopt what the W3C has. We might want to write up a clear “bright line” for when someone is a participant and add something clear to the IPR Agreement that says “by doing XYZ you are becoming a participant and the IPR Policy applies to you”.<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>Peter – we should keep a formal list of members of working groups as the solution here. We already have a lot of the processes in place already—joining the Forum, joining working groups, etc.. <o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>Ben – what should the mechanics be to join a working group? Do you send a message to the Chair of the Forum or to the chair of the working group? Working group chairs would have to maintain lists of WG members.<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>Peter – you would send a message to a public list so that it’s easier for everyone to keep track of who is in each working group. Chairs would still need to supervise to ensure that only WG members participate in WGs. We could have someone keep track of who is on calls because it is important with a RAND-Z IPR policy that contributions are only made by participants who are subject to the IPR Policy. Otherwise someone could come in and make a contribution and claim a patent on it. <o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>Virginia – I agree. It’s important to have a list of the members of working groups. Meetings can be “members only” and then we wouldn’t necessarily have to keep roll. <o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>Peter – We could restrict use of the phone conference access codes by working group. At face-to-face meetings we are going to ask non-participants to leave.<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>Ben – what if we just said they couldn’t speak and if they did they would be out of order?<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>Virginia – I think we’re going to need them to leave. It’s easy enough to join a working group if they are really interested.<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>Peter – Agreed.<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>Ben – So, in summary, we’ve decided that there will be a public list of working group participants. Now, doesn’t the W3C have a procedure if you want to leave a working group?<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>Virginia – Yes, they have a way to resign and make an exclusion. <o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>Peter - I believe that in our IPR Policy that a contribution directly made is always covered. So just because you leave the working group before a vote doesn’t mean you aren’t subject to the IPR Policy. And there is a catch-up provision if you want to re-join. <o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>Virginia – With the W3C you have an exclusion opportunity when you leave. There are other exclusion opportunities when you join and for the last published working draft prior to your exit. <o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>Peter – The CA/B Forum doesn’t have formal drafts, but we have the contribution rule. We could probably do this without a whole other round of IPR policy agreements.<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>Ben – I think we’d need to do that. I do think we have a lot of good language in the IPR policy, but the question is how do we walk it over to working groups? We might have to pull out the IPR policy as a reference whenever we do something in working groups. We’ll have to be able to point to the IPR policy and tell people when they need to exclude, or whatever. In other words, we’ll need to provide some training for implementing the IPR policy in the context of a working group. Now what do we need to discuss? Membership criteria? The SSL Working Group, which will be by far the largest working group? We could talk about the W3C and their technical group and their management group. Their management group doesn’t have power except to advise the membership at large on consistency matters, etc. The power is still reserved to members with one member, one vote. Do we want to look at that as a model, or do we stay as we are? <o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>Peter – The W3C has many more members than the CA/Browser Forum.<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>Andrew – The W3C also has a technical advisory group, but I’m not sure we’re big enough to warrant that, but you might want a mechanism to ensure that you don’t have a bunch of working groups all trying to cover the same area.<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>JC - We should have a mechanism in place where an existing group can ask another group to revise policy if it is deemed necessary, but proceeding with a direct democracy would be tenable for the foreseeable future.<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>Ben – there were comments during the face-to-face about automotive and internet of things, and I believe that those workgroups would bring in many more members. I’m not sure its manageable, and we might need to think about this sooner rather than later.<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>Patrick – Just to add, in the electrical industry now we’re interacting with smart grid devices more than with browsers, and we need to get these device manufacturers involved in this decisionmaking and focus more on the client-side. A lot of the decisions we make for server-side SSL does not apply to a lot of the work we’re doing nowadays. <o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>Andrew – I envision that the existing SSL group be broken into two – one that is a general certificate group that covers things that are absolutely common to everything, and the other that deals with specific issues. <o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>Ben – on the next call we’ll discuss working group formation. Thanks everyone.<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p></div></body></html>