<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;}
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;}
span.EmailStyle17
{mso-style-type:personal-reply;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
color:#1F497D;}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;}
@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 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:#1F497D">I disagree.
<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D">BR 9.16.3 was intended to let applicable law supersede the BRs (of course), and therefore the WebTrust / ETSI audit standards for the BRs as well, so that a CA
that is following applicable law (which we all must do) will NOT receive a qualified audit, so long as the CA calls out the divergence from the BRs due to applicable law – that’s the point of BR 9.16.3. The resulting audit (so long as it notes this divergence
due to local law) should be unqualified, not qualified. In my opinion, any other interpretation is dead wrong.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D">Take a look at all of our Terms of Service / User Agreements, etc. They typically say that in the event of a conflict between local law and the terms of our
agreement, local law will prevail (i.e., the agreement will be modified to the minimum extent necessary to comply with local law). If you don’t believe me, please consult with your own legal departments to confirm.
<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D">The same should apply to the BRs and the WebTrust / ETSI BR requirements – they must be reformed (waived, modified) to the extent necessary to comply with local
law, so long as the modification is called out to the public. Anything else is picking a fight with governments for no good reason.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D">Why don’t we ask the WebTrust / ETSI auditors how they recommend we deal with conflicts between the BRs and applicable law? They are the experts on audit processes
– not the rest of us.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">From:</span></b><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif"> Ryan Sleevi [mailto:sleevi@google.com]
<br>
<b>Sent:</b> Sunday, March 5, 2017 6:08 PM<br>
<b>To:</b> CA/Browser Forum Public Discussion List <public@cabforum.org><br>
<b>Cc:</b> Peter Bowen <pzb@amzn.com>; Kirk Hall <Kirk.Hall@entrustdatacard.com><br>
<b>Subject:</b> Re: [cabfpub] Naming rules<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">On Sun, Mar 5, 2017 at 5:18 PM, Kirk Hall via Public <<a href="mailto:public@cabforum.org" target="_blank">public@cabforum.org</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-right:0in">
<p class="MsoNormal">+1. Seems like a good resolution to me - full disclosure to users and browsers, deference to local law where applicable as provided in BR 9.16.3 (local users are probably already used to any local customs on naming rules), and avoids the
need for the Forum to try to understand and approve/disapprove local naming rules one by one. Allows auditors to complete successful audits with disclosure, and the trust list maintainers receive notice and can make their own decisions.<o:p></o:p></p>
</blockquote>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">I think it's worth pointing out, again, that deference to local law, as you suggested, only applies in exceptionally limited cases - and on the basis of the provided evidence, does not apply.<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">I think this is crucial for the Forum's members - and auditors who may be following - to understand and appreciate. <o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</body>
</html>