<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=utf-8"><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;}
/* 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;}
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.EmailStyle18
{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='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.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:windowtext'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:windowtext'>How about:<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><u><span style='color:red'><o:p><span style='text-decoration:none'> </span></o:p></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 .<o:p></o:p></span></u></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:windowtext'><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>Gervase Markham<br><b>Sent:</b> Wednesday, April 27, 2016 10:38 AM<br><b>To:</b> CABFPub <public@cabforum.org><br><b>Subject:</b> [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='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">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><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></body></html>