[cabfpub] FW: Associate member of the CA/B Forum

[kirk_hall at trendmicro.com]

No, you missed my point.  For greater public participation, I was saying keep Associate Members and Interested Parties as is, but ADD a new email list open to anyone, without having to sign the IPR or become an Associate Member or Interested Party or sign any IPR.  Arguably that would satisfy those who say that general members of the public can’t make their views known.

From: Ryan Sleevi [mailto:sleevi at google.com]
Sent: Monday, April 11, 2016 3:33 PM
To: Kirk Hall (RD-US)
Cc: Dean Coclin; public at cabforum.org
Subject: Re: [cabfpub] FW: Associate member of the CA/B Forum



On Mon, Apr 11, 2016 at 2:38 PM, kirk_hall at trendmicro.com<mailto:kirk_hall at trendmicro.com> <kirk_hall at trendmicro.com<mailto:kirk_hall at trendmicro.com>> wrote:


2.      The issue of whether and how to open up the Forum to more voices comes up often.  I have said multiple times – I would not oppose, and might even favor, a new email address where anyone in the world could post on issues before us – so long as someone volunteers to moderate the postings and exclude trolls, etc.  And I would want to keep this list separate from the current management@ (which deals with logistics issues among members) and separate from the public@ list (which I think requires signing the IPR and becoming an Associate Member to have posting rights).  I think many of the blogging sites run by others suffer from too many postings from people with strong opinion but who are not directly affected by the subject at hand, who sometimes drown out other voices, and I wouldn’t want that to happen with what we already have (which seems a pretty efficient method for us to do our business).  But a third email address for an open list that someone volunteers to moderate could be useful.
Interested Parties can participate on the list. That's the whole point of this concern about Associate Members vs Interested Parties - interested parties CAN fully participate on the list(s), as I pointed out earlier on the list, and was previously raised on the call. See the Bylaws v 1.4 and compare Sections 3.1 with 3.2

All of the rights are the same, with two notable exceptions:
1) Interested parties cannot see or participate the management@ list
2) Interested Parties can't just show up at meetings / on calls - they have to be invited by the Chair.

I argue that 1 is a good thing; I think there is a bias towards wanting to conduct business in secret, especially as shown by the discussions of SHA-1, and I think that harms, rather than helps, the ecosystem. Full members today already struggle in making sure that substantive technical discussions happen on the correct (public) list and don't occur on the management@ list during the discussion of draft minutes.

And as I tried to explain in my previous message, 2 is also arguably a good thing.

So if your concern is "Keep out Interested Parties" - that ship has already sailed. Anyone who wants to join as an Interested Party can. And we've already discussed (and accepted and acknowledged) that members can forward messages on behalf of the 'general public' to the public@ list.

<table class="TM_EMAIL_NOTICE"><tr><td><pre>
TREND MICRO EMAIL NOTICE
The information contained in this email and any attachments is confidential 
and may be subject to copyright or other intellectual property protection. 
If you are not the intended recipient, you are not authorized to use or 
disclose this information, and we request that you notify us by reply mail or
telephone and delete the original message from your mail system.
</pre></td></tr></table>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.cabforum.org/pipermail/public/attachments/20160411/0a91fb36/attachment-0003.html>