<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=Windows-1252">
</head>
<body>
<p dir="auto"></p>
<p dir="auto">Izenpe</p>
<p dir="auto">votes YES<br>
</p>
<p dir="auto">*Ballot 174 - Reform of Requirements Relating to Conflicts with Local > Law * > > The following motion has been proposed by Gervase Markham of Mozilla > and endorsed by Kirk Hall of Entrust and Moudrick Dadashov of SSC: > > *Statement of Intent:*
The purpose of this change is to reform section > 9.16.3 of the BRs, titled "Severability", which deals with what a CA > must do when it encounters a conflict between the requirements of a > jurisdiction under which it operates and the requirements of the
BRs. > At the moment, this clause is triggered only by a court determination > rather than by the CA encountering a conflict, which makes it unlikely > to ever be triggered, and it requires notification to the CAB Forum > but not documentation of the outcome.
The current clause is: > > 9.16.3. Severability > > 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 of
the facts, > circumstances, and law(s) involved, so that the CA/Browser Forum may > revise these Requirements accordingly. > > *--Motion Begins-- > * > > * > * > > Delete section 9.16.3 from the Baseline Requirements in its entirety > and replace it with the
following: > > 9.16.3. Severability > > In the event of a conflict between these Requirements and a law, > regulation or government order (hereinafter 'Law') of any jurisdiction > in which a CA operates or issues certificates, a CA MAY modify any > conflicting
requirement to the minimum extent necessary to make the > requirement valid and legal in the jurisdiction. This applies only to > operations or certificate issuances that are subject to that Law. In > such event, the CA SHALL immediately (and prior to issuing
a > certificate under the modified requirement) include in Section 9.16.3 > of the CA’s CPS a detailed reference to the Law requiring a > modification of these Requirements under this section, and the > specific modification to these Requirements implemented
by the CA. > > The CA MUST also (prior to issuing a certificate under the modified > requirements) notify the CA/Browser Forum of the relevant information > newly added to its CPS by sending a message to questions@cabforum.org > and receiving confirmation
that it has been posted to the Public > Mailing List and is indexed in the Public Mail Archives available at > https://cabforum.org/pipermail/public/ (or such other email addresses > and links as the Forum may designate), so that the CA/Browser Forum > may
consider possible revisions to these Requirements accordingly. > > Any modification to CA practice enabled under this section MUST be > discontinued if and when the Law no longer applies, or these > Requirements are modified to make it possible to comply with
both them > and the Law simultaneously. An appropriate change in practice, > modification to the CA’s CPS and a notice to the CA/Browser Forum, as > outlined above, MUST be made within 90 days. > > CAs are required to make this change to their processes by
a date 90 > days from the date this ballot passes. > > > *--Motion Ends-- > * > > > ** > > The review period for this ballot shall commence immediately and close > at 2200 UTC on Monday 22nd August. Unless the motion is withdrawn > during the review period,
the voting period will start immediately > thereafter and will close at 2200 UTC on Monday 29th August. Votes > must be cast by posting an on-list reply to this thread. > > A vote in favor of the motion must indicate a clear 'yes' in the > response. A vote
against must indicate a clear 'no' in the response. A > vote to abstain must indicate a clear 'abstain' in the response. > Unclear responses will not be counted. The latest vote received from > any representative of a voting member before the close of the
voting > period will be counted. Voting members are listed here: > https://cabforum.org/members/ > > In order for the motion to be adopted, two thirds or more of the votes > cast by members in the CA category and greater than 50% of the votes > cast by members
in the browser category must be in favor. Quorum is > currently ten (10) members – at least ten members must participate in > the ballot, either by voting in favor, voting against, or abstaining. > > > > ______________________________________________<br>
</p>
</body>
</html>