<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=us-ascii">
<meta name="Generator" content="Microsoft Exchange Server">
<!-- converted from rtf -->
<style><!-- .EmailQuote { margin-left: 1pt; padding-left: 4pt; border-left: #800000 2px solid; } --></style>
</head>
<body>
<font face="Calibri, sans-serif" size="2">
<div>I am withdrawing the current Ballot 89 language and replacing it as outlined below. A while back, I volunteered to update the Guidance to Application Developers (version 1, dated 2009, at <a href="https://www.cabforum.org/Guidelines_for_the_processing_of_EV_certificates%20v1_0.pdf"><font color="#0000FF"><u>https://www.cabforum.org/Guidelines_for_the_processing_of_EV_certificates%20v1_0.pdf</u></font></a>).
Based on comments received, edits were made to both the guideline document and the ballot. However, more recently I began to understand that none of the browser vendors were supportive of my changes. Of particular note, I received objections to some provisions
in version 2, but then I saw that the same language currently exists in the 2009 version on the CABF website (i.e., that a browser should drop EV treatment for certificates that don’t meet crypto requirements (Section 10) and that browsers should adjust their
Root Embedding Programs accordingly (Section 7)). So my conclusion is that browser vendors might not be supportive of version 1 either. However, as a final effort, I have edited the document again and renamed it to: “Recommendations for the Processing of
EV SSL Certificates.” You can view changes from version 1 in the attached documents.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Therefore, I am proposing that Ballot 89 go forward as follows, if I can get two endorsers:</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Ballot 93 - Reasons for Revocation (BR issues 6, 8, 10, 21)</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Rick Andrews (Symantec) made the following motion, endorsed by ? and ?:</div>
<div> </div>
<div>--- Motion begins ---</div>
<div> </div>
<div>A “YES” vote on Ballot 89 means that the member votes to remove the 2009 Version 1.0 of “GUIDELINES for the PROCESSING of EXTENDED VALIDATION CERTIFICATES” from the public CA Browser Forum website and replace it with the attached “RECOMMENDATIONS for the
PROCESSING of EXTENDED VALIDATION CERTIFICATES”.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>A “NO” vote on the ballot means that the member votes to remove the 2009 Version 1.0 of “GUIDELINES for the PROCESSING of EXTENDED VALIDATION CERTIFICATES” on the public CA Browser Forum website and not replace it.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>... Motion ends ...</div>
<div> </div>
<div>-Rick</div>
<div> </div>
<div> </div>
<div> </div>
</font>
</body>
</html>