<html>
  <head>
    <meta content="text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1"
      http-equiv="Content-Type">
  </head>
  <body text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
    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?<br>
    <br>
    <div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 4/27/2016 12:44 PM, Ryan Sleevi
      wrote:<br>
    </div>
    <blockquote
cite="mid:CACvaWvY5gWQRGnCDDEqy7eoAvuFbV=UeJeB2o+gsTLd7CZyjiw@mail.gmail.com"
      type="cite">
      <div dir="ltr">Jeremy,
        <div><br>
        </div>
        <div>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?<br>
          <div class="gmail_extra"><br>
            <div class="gmail_quote">On Wed, Apr 27, 2016 at 10:40 AM,
              Jeremy Rowley <span dir="ltr"><<a
                  moz-do-not-send="true"
                  href="mailto:jeremy.rowley@digicert.com"
                  target="_blank">jeremy.rowley@digicert.com</a>></span>
              wrote:<br>
              <blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0
                .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
                <div bgcolor="white" link="blue" vlink="purple"
                  lang="EN-US">
                  <div>
                    <p class="MsoNormal"><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></p>
                    <p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:windowtext"> </span></p>
                    <p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:windowtext">How
                        about:</span></p>
                    <p class="MsoNormal"><u><span style="color:red"><span
                            style="text-decoration:none"> </span></span></u></p>
                    <p class="MsoNormal"><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></p>
                    <p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:windowtext"> </span></p>
                    <p class="MsoNormal"><a moz-do-not-send="true"
                        name="m_-3985529974465167206__MailEndCompose"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:windowtext"> </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">
                            <a moz-do-not-send="true"
                              href="mailto:public-bounces@cabforum.org"
                              target="_blank">public-bounces@cabforum.org</a>
                            [mailto:<a moz-do-not-send="true"
                              href="mailto:public-bounces@cabforum.org"
                              target="_blank">public-bounces@cabforum.org</a>]
                            <b>On Behalf Of </b>Gervase Markham<br>
                            <b>Sent:</b> Wednesday, April 27, 2016 10:38
                            AM<br>
                            <b>To:</b> CABFPub <<a
                              moz-do-not-send="true"
                              href="mailto:public@cabforum.org"
                              target="_blank">public@cabforum.org</a>><br>
                            <b>Subject:</b> [cabfpub] BRs section 9.16.3
                            (exception for laws)</span></p>
                      </div>
                    </div>
                    <div>
                      <div class="h5">
                        <p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
                        <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-autospace:none">Hi
                          everyone,</p>
                        <p class="MsoNormal" style="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.</p>
                        <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-autospace:none">What
                          do people think?</p>
                        <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-autospace:none">Gerv</p>
                        <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-autospace:none"> </p>
                        <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-autospace:none"><b>9.16.3.
                            Severability</b></p>
                        <p class="MsoNormal" style="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
                            moz-do-not-send="true"
                            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.</p>
                        <p class="MsoNormal"><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></p>
                      </div>
                    </div>
                  </div>
                </div>
                <br>
                _______________________________________________<br>
                Public mailing list<br>
                <a moz-do-not-send="true"
                  href="mailto:Public@cabforum.org">Public@cabforum.org</a><br>
                <a moz-do-not-send="true"
                  href="https://cabforum.org/mailman/listinfo/public"
                  rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://cabforum.org/mailman/listinfo/public</a><br>
                <br>
              </blockquote>
            </div>
            <br>
          </div>
        </div>
      </div>
      <br>
      <fieldset class="mimeAttachmentHeader"></fieldset>
      <br>
      <pre wrap="">_______________________________________________
Public mailing list
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:Public@cabforum.org">Public@cabforum.org</a>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://cabforum.org/mailman/listinfo/public">https://cabforum.org/mailman/listinfo/public</a>
</pre>
    </blockquote>
    <br>
  </body>
</html>