<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:x="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:excel" 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 14 (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:blue;
text-decoration:underline;}
a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:purple;
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=blue vlink=purple><div class=WordSection1><p class=MsoNormal>To my recollection, this pre-ballot has not yet been fully discussed by this group. The EV Working Group circulated this pre-ballot for discussion, and Moudrick asked for an explanation of why it is needed. I explained that this is simply re-wording the language to make it easier to understand. Others have commented that it shouldn’t create a lot of debate, except for the fact that it has a lot of redlining. I think Jeremy and Cecilia are seeking another endorser.<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>Here is an explanation of the changes. <o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>First, although not directly related to this ballot, but helpful for explanatory purposes about it, this section is meant to address operational existence. In drafting the original language we knew we could not establish presumptively that an organization was actually doing business because that would be too hard, but we wanted to have a way to say that the organization had more than just a legal existence or a physical address, and we settled on “an ability to do business”. <o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>Unlike other sections of the EV Guidelines, the current section 11.5.1 loses the simplicity of that approach in verbiage that contains verification steps. (Other sections state just the requirement, with a following section that sets forth the verification steps.) Fixing this problem with 11.5.1 is the motivation behind this proposed change.<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>Thus, language is removed from section 11.5.1 and placed in 11.5.2 so that 11.5.1 simply says, “The CA MUST verify that the Applicant has the ability to engage in business by verifying the Applicant's, or Affiliate/Parent/Subsidiary Company’s, operational existence,” which I think makes a lot of sense. <o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>The ballot then proposes that section 11.5.2 begin, “To verify the Applicant’s ability to engage in business, the CA MUST verify the operational existence of the Applicant, or its Affiliate/Parent/Subsidiary Company, by: ….” The current introduction to 11.5.2 only refers to “operational existence” and not “an ability to engage in business”. An “ability to engage in business” is added to 11.5.2 to keep it congruent with 11.5.1.<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>Section 11.5.2:<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>Subsection (1) three-year existence in 11.5.2 comes from moving it down from 11.5.1.<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>Subsection (2) QIIS/QTIS listing also comes down from 11.5.1. <o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>Subsection (3) consists of wording changes to maintain parallelism throughout sections 11.5.1 and 11.5.2.<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>As Jeremy explained to Moudrick in an email about this proposal, the word “or” between subsections (3) and (4) does not make section 11.5.2 any different substantively from how sections 11.5.1 and 11.5.2 currently exist.<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>Subsection (4) is essentially the same.<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>In summation, this proposed ballot is only a clean-up of the existing language, as far as I can tell.<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal> <o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>I’d like to put this ballot on the agenda for discussion during our call July 10<sup>th</sup> in two weeks. <o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>Thanks,<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>Ben<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p></div></body></html>