<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=utf-8" http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
<p>On 16/07/16 02:24, Ryan Sleevi wrote:<br>
</p>
<blockquote
cite="mid:CACvaWvYf2OYpq2RB8Uti5=31Jdf7Jk5v7dZirzpak27Y7ed6AQ@mail.gmail.com"
type="cite">
<div dir="ltr">We can and should continue discussion of reform to
9.16.3, for the many obvious threats that were presented. As an
example, Kirk's unfortunate response ("well, you have your
disclosure, so why are we wasting any more time on it?")
highlights the need to provide greater clarity, for some people,
about the importance and expectation of timely disclosure of
relevant facts. Similarly, the issues raised by Gerv and I in
the past are still in need of suitable resolution.</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
This seems like a good moment to revive the reform plan for 9.16.3,
the<br>
text of which was helpfully contributed to by several people,
including<br>
Kirk.<br>
<br>
The final text we came up with after the last discussion was:<br>
<b><br>
9.16.3. Severability</b>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.8px">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 </span><u style="font-size:12.8px"><span
style="color:red">by sending a message to <a
href="mailto:questions@cabforum.org" target="_blank">questions@cabforum.org</a>
explaining</span></u><span style="font-size:12.8px"> the
facts, circumstances, and law(s) involved, </span><u><font
color="#ff0000"><span style="font-size:12.8px">and receiving
confirmation that it has been posted to the Public Mailing
List and is indexed in the Public Mail Archives available
at <a href="https://cabforum.org/pipermail/public/"
target="_blank">https://cabforum.org/pipermail/public/</a>,</span></font></u><font
color="#ff0000"><span style="font-size:12.8px"> </span></font><span
style="font-size:12.8px">so that the CA/Browser Forum may </span><u
style="font-size:12.8px"><font color="#ff0000">consider
possible revisions to these</font></u><span
style="font-size:12.8px"> Requirements accordingly.</span></p>
<font color="#ff0000"><span style="font-size:12.8px"><u>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.</u></span></font><br>
</div>
<div class="gmail_extra"><br>
</div>
<br>
Any more comments before I prepare a ballot?<br>
<br>
Gerv<br>
<br>
</body>
</html>