<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;}
@font-face
{font-family:Consolas;
panose-1:2 11 6 9 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;
color:black;}
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;}
pre
{mso-style-priority:99;
mso-style-link:"HTML Preformatted Char";
margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:"Courier New";
color:black;}
span.HTMLPreformattedChar
{mso-style-name:"HTML Preformatted Char";
mso-style-priority:99;
mso-style-link:"HTML Preformatted";
font-family:Consolas;
color:black;}
p.msonormal0, li.msonormal0, div.msonormal0
{mso-style-name:msonormal;
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;
color:black;}
span.EmailStyle20
{mso-style-type:personal-reply;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
color:windowtext;}
.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 bgcolor=white lang=EN-US link=blue vlink=purple><div class=WordSection1><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:windowtext'>There is nothing policy-wise that the CAB forum can do about a gag order (which is why CT and gossiping is fundamentally necessary). However, I don’t think most govs intentionally enact contradictory requirements. Instead, they enact policies globally applicable without awareness of ore regards to any standards body like the CAB Forum. This change (along with the existing language) will allow the CAB Forum and relying parties to identify unintentional conflicts without having the entire document voided by a government ruling.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><a name="_MailEndCompose"><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:windowtext'><o:p> </o:p></span></a></p><div><div style='border:none;border-top:solid #E1E1E1 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0in 0in 0in'><p class=MsoNormal><b><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:windowtext'>From:</span></b><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:windowtext'> public-bounces@cabforum.org [mailto:public-bounces@cabforum.org] <b>On Behalf Of </b>Rich Smith<br><b>Sent:</b> Wednesday, April 27, 2016 1:31 PM<br><b>To:</b> public@cabforum.org<br><b>Subject:</b> Re: [cabfpub] BRs section 9.16.3 (exception for laws)<o:p></o:p></span></p></div></div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-bottom:12.0pt'>None of this addresses a gag order by said jurisdiction, which IMO is quite likely in a case wherein a government put such a requirement on a CA, at least in any case where such deviation from the BRs is truly of any concern. Dead man switch?<o:p></o:p></p><div><p class=MsoNormal>On 4/27/2016 12:44 PM, Ryan Sleevi wrote:<o:p></o:p></p></div><blockquote style='margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt'><div><p class=MsoNormal>Jeremy, <o:p></o:p></p><div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal>I don't believe your proposal addresses the necessary transparency and disclosure that the CA ecosystem needs for such matters. Is there a reason you removed that language, or was it merely an oversight in addressing the other issue you highlighted?<o:p></o:p></p><div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><div><p class=MsoNormal>On Wed, Apr 27, 2016 at 10:40 AM, Jeremy Rowley <<a href="mailto:jeremy.rowley@digicert.com" target="_blank">jeremy.rowley@digicert.com</a>> wrote:<o:p></o:p></p><blockquote style='border:none;border-left:solid #CCCCCC 1.0pt;padding:0in 0in 0in 6.0pt;margin-left:4.8pt;margin-top:5.0pt;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:5.0pt'><div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><span style='color:windowtext'>Some CAs may not “want” to deviate from a requirement but may be forced to by regulation. They also won’t “deviate from… these Requirements” because the requirements are reformed to the extent necessary to accommodate for the law.</span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><span style='color:windowtext'> </span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><span style='color:windowtext'>How about:</span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><span style='color:red'> </span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><u><span style='color:red'>A CA that issues a certificate under a requirement reformed through an action of a court or government body with jurisdiction SHALL list the reformed requirement in Section 9.16.3 of the CA’s CPS prior to issuing a certificate and include (in Section 9.16.3 of the CA’s CPS) a reference to the law or government order requiring a reformation under this section .</span></u><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:windowtext'> </span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><a name="m_-3985529974465167206__MailEndCompose"><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:windowtext'> </span></a><o:p></o:p></p><div><div style='border:none;border-top:solid #E1E1E1 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0in 0in 0in'><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><b><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:windowtext'>From:</span></b><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:windowtext'> </span><a href="mailto:public-bounces@cabforum.org" target="_blank"><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'>public-bounces@cabforum.org</span></a><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:windowtext'> [mailto:</span><a href="mailto:public-bounces@cabforum.org" target="_blank"><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'>public-bounces@cabforum.org</span></a><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:windowtext'>] <b>On Behalf Of </b>Gervase Markham<br><b>Sent:</b> Wednesday, April 27, 2016 10:38 AM<br><b>To:</b> CABFPub <</span><a href="mailto:public@cabforum.org" target="_blank"><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'>public@cabforum.org</span></a><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:windowtext'>><br><b>Subject:</b> [cabfpub] BRs section 9.16.3 (exception for laws)</span><o:p></o:p></p></div></div><div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'> <o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;text-autospace:none'>Hi everyone,<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;text-autospace:none'>At the last CAB Forum meeting, we had a discussion about BRs section 9.16.3, and the possibility that it allows CAs to violate the BRs without appropriate notification. After the CAB Forum meeting, the following amendment (which I have tweaked) was helpfully suggested by one participant in the conversation The aim is to bring transparency, so anyone in violation under this clause is at least documented, and we can consider revisions to the BRs accordingly.<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;text-autospace:none'>What do people think?<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;text-autospace:none'>Gerv<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;text-autospace:none'> <o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;text-autospace:none'><b>9.16.3. Severability</b><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;text-autospace:none'>If a court or government body with jurisdiction over the activities covered by these Requirements determines that the performance of any mandatory requirement is illegal, then such requirement is considered reformed to the minimum extent necessary to make the requirement valid and legal. This applies only to operations or certificate issuances that are subject to the laws of that jurisdiction. The parties involved SHALL notify the CA / Browser Forum <u><span style='color:red'>by sending a detailed message to </span></u><a href="mailto:questions@cabforum.org" target="_blank">questions@cabforum.org</a><u><span style='color:red'> </span></u>of the facts, circumstances, and law(s) involved, <u><span style='color:red'>and receiving confirmation of the receipt of the message by the CA/Browser Forum,</span></u><span style='color:red'> </span>so that the CA/Browser Forum may <u><span style='color:red'>consider possible revisions to these</span></u> Requirements accordingly.<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><u><span style='color:red'>Any CA that wants to deviate from any mandatory requirement of these Requirements as written on the basis of this Section 9.16.3 must list all such non-conformity (including a reference to the specific Requirement(s) subject to deviation) in Section 9.16.3 of the CA’s CPS before deviating from the Requirement(s), and include in such disclosure the facts, circumstances, and law(s) involved. </span></u><o:p></o:p></p></div></div></div></div><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-bottom:12.0pt'><br>_______________________________________________<br>Public mailing list<br><a href="mailto:Public@cabforum.org">Public@cabforum.org</a><br><a href="https://cabforum.org/mailman/listinfo/public" target="_blank">https://cabforum.org/mailman/listinfo/public</a><o:p></o:p></p></blockquote></div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p></div></div></div><p class=MsoNormal><br><br><br><o:p></o:p></p><pre>_______________________________________________<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>Public mailing list<o:p></o:p></pre><pre><a href="mailto:Public@cabforum.org">Public@cabforum.org</a><o:p></o:p></pre><pre><a href="https://cabforum.org/mailman/listinfo/public">https://cabforum.org/mailman/listinfo/public</a><o:p></o:p></pre></blockquote><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p></div></body></html>