<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 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;}
@font-face
{font-family:Tahoma;
panose-1:2 11 6 4 3 5 4 4 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;}
p.MsoAcetate, li.MsoAcetate, div.MsoAcetate
{mso-style-priority:99;
mso-style-link:"Balloon Text Char";
margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:8.0pt;
font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif";}
p.MsoListParagraph, li.MsoListParagraph, div.MsoListParagraph
{mso-style-priority:34;
margin-top:0in;
margin-right:0in;
margin-bottom:0in;
margin-left:.5in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";}
p.line874, li.line874, div.line874
{mso-style-name:line874;
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";}
p.line867, li.line867, div.line867
{mso-style-name:line867;
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.EmailStyle20
{mso-style-type:personal;
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:windowtext;}
span.EmailStyle21
{mso-style-type:personal;
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D;}
span.EmailStyle22
{mso-style-type:personal;
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D;}
span.EmailStyle23
{mso-style-type:personal;
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D;}
span.EmailStyle24
{mso-style-type:personal;
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D;}
span.EmailStyle26
{mso-style-type:personal-reply;
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D;}
span.BalloonTextChar
{mso-style-name:"Balloon Text Char";
mso-style-priority:99;
mso-style-link:"Balloon Text";
font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif";}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;
font-size:10.0pt;}
@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><span style='color:#1F497D'>Thanks, Mads, for bringing this issue up sooner rather than later.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:#1F497D'>The sponsor and endorsers should all come to an agreement on what they think (4) should say and then respond to the list with an amendment, if needed. If we can make any resulting ballot modification before next Tuesday, then I don’t think we should be required to restart the review period or postpone voting, but that’s just my opinion.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><div><div style='border:none;border-top:solid #B5C4DF 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0in 0in 0in'><p class=MsoNormal><b><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif"'>From:</span></b><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif"'> public-bounces@cabforum.org [mailto:public-bounces@cabforum.org] <b>On Behalf Of </b>Mads Egil Henriksveen<br><b>Sent:</b> Friday, July 11, 2014 9:02 AM<br><b>To:</b> Ben Wilson; public@cabforum.org<br><b>Subject:</b> Re: [cabfpub] Ballot 126 - Operational Existence<o:p></o:p></span></p></div></div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=NO-BOK style='color:#1F497D'>Hi<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=NO-BOK style='color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:#1F497D'>Is it correct that subsection(4) shall refer to ‘the Applicant’ only, while the other subsections refers to ‘the Applicant, Affiliate, Parent Company, or Subsidiary Company’ or should the latter be used also for subsection (4)?<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:#1F497D'>Regards<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:#1F497D'>Mads<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><div><div style='border:none;border-top:solid #B5C4DF 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0in 0in 0in'><p class=MsoNormal><b><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif"'>From:</span></b><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif"'> <a href="mailto:public-bounces@cabforum.org">public-bounces@cabforum.org</a> [<a href="mailto:public-bounces@cabforum.org">mailto:public-bounces@cabforum.org</a>] <b>On Behalf Of </b>Ben Wilson<br><b>Sent:</b> 11. juli 2014 05:45<br><b>To:</b> <a href="mailto:public@cabforum.org">public@cabforum.org</a><br><b>Subject:</b> [cabfpub] Ballot 126 - Operational Existence<o:p></o:p></span></p></div></div><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=NO-BOK><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=line874><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"'>Jeremy Rowley of Digicert made the following motion and Cecilia Kam of Symantec and Doug Beattie of GlobalSign have endorsed it: <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=line867><strong><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"'>Reason(s) for Ballot 126: </span></strong><b><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"'>Problem</span></b><b><span style='font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"'>(</span></b><b><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"'>s</span></b><b><span style='font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"'>)</span></b><b><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"'> with Current Wording<o:p></o:p></span></b></p><p class=MsoNormal>A - Section 11.5 is unclear, as evidenced by the need to restate that requirement with an additional sentence<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>B - Section 11.5 begins with the word “If” – making it appear conditional rather than mandatory <o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>C - Section 11.5 does not follow the framework used elsewhere in Section 11 of the EV Guidelines. The framework is: (1) state the requirement and (2) state the acceptable methods of meeting that requirement. <o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>D - Section 11.5 could be edited to help clarify the relationship between “ability to engage in business” and “operational existence” for purposes of the EV Guidelines<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><b>Approach Used in Ballot 126 to Address the Problem<o:p></o:p></b></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>Language is removed from the requirements section (section 11.5.1) and placed in the acceptable methods section (section 11.5.2) so that section 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.” <o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>Section 11.5.2 would 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 section 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 section 11.5.2 to keep it congruent with section 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>(1) Three-year existence in subsection 11.5.2(1) comes from moving it down from section 11.5.1.<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>(2) QIIS/QTIS listing in subsection 11.5.2(2) also comes down from section 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>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><b>Additional Support for Approach Taken / Words Used in Ballot 126<o:p></o:p></b></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>Section 11.5 is meant to address operational existence. In drafting the original language, members of the Forum knew that it would be too hard to presumptively establish that an organization was “actually doing business,” but there was a desire to retain a requirement and method to establish that an organization had more than just a legal existence and physical address, and they settled on the concept of “an ability to do business”. <o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>----Motion Begins ----<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>1. DELETE Section 11.5.1 (Verification Requirements) of the EV Guidelines and INSERT the following:<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:.5in'>11.5.1. Verification Requirements<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:.5in'>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.<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>2. DELETE Section 11.5.2 (Verification Requirements) of the EV Guidelines and INSERT the following:<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:.5in'>11.5.2. Acceptable Methods of Verification<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:.5in'>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:<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:.5in'>(1) Verifying that the Applicant, Affiliate, Parent Company, or Subsidiary Company has been in existence for at least three years, as indicated by the records of an Incorporating Agency or Registration Agency;<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:.5in'>(2) Verifying that the Applicant, Affiliate, Parent Company, or Subsidiary Company is listed in either a current QIIS or QTIS;<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:.5in'>(3) Verifying that the Applicant, Affiliate, Parent Company, or Subsidiary Company has an active current Demand Deposit Account with a Regulated Financial Institution by receiving authenticated documentation of the Applicant's, Affiliate's, Parent Company's, or Subsidiary Company's Demand Deposit Account directly from a Regulated Financial Institution; or<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:.5in'>(4) Relying on a Verified Legal Opinion or a Verified Accountant Letter to the effect that the Applicant has an active current Demand Deposit Account with a Regulated Financial Institution.<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>----Motion Ends ----<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>The review period for this ballot shall commence at 2200 UTC on Thursday, July 10, 2014, and will close at 2200 UTC on Thursday, July 17, 2014. <o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>Unless the motion is withdrawn during the review period, the voting period will start immediately thereafter and will close at 2200 UTC on Thursday, July 24, 2014. Votes must be cast by posting an on-list reply to this thread. <o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>A vote in favor of the motion must indicate a clear 'yes' in the response. <o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>A vote against must indicate a clear 'no' in the response. <o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>A vote to abstain must indicate a clear 'abstain' in the response. Unclear responses will not be counted. <o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>The latest vote received from any representative of a voting member before the close of the voting period will be counted. <o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>Voting members are listed here: <a href="https://cabforum.org/members/"><span style='color:windowtext'>https://cabforum.org/members/</span></a> <o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>In order for the motion to be adopted, two thirds or more of the votes cast by members in the CA category and more than one half of the votes cast by members in the browser category must be in favor. Quorum is currently seven (7) members– at least seven members must participate in the ballot, either by voting in favor, voting against, or by abstaining for the vote to be valid.<o:p></o:p></p></div></body></html>