<div dir="ltr"><br><div class="gmail_extra"><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Fri, May 19, 2017 at 7:52 PM, Peter Bowen <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:pzb@amzn.com" target="_blank">pzb@amzn.com</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><div style="word-wrap:break-word"><div><span class="gmail-"><div>There is no reason a CA couldn’t pull public records based on info in CT to help expedite things (for example identifying the company registration number), but the validation still has to happen. You can’t finalize the validation without binding it to a legal entity who will be the applicant/subscriber.  It is possible that this validation could use records pulled by the CA prior to the request for validation.<br></div></span></div></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>And this goes back to the initial question you posed that kicked this all off, namely:</div><div>"I think some have suggested that the BRs don’t allow this alternative order of operations, but I’m having a little trouble finding the specific cite.  Do you, Ryan, or does anyone else, think the order of operations described above is not valid?"</div><div><br></div><div>To tie this all back together: Section 4.2.1 only permits the reuse of information gathered in context with Section 3.2:</div><div>"The<span style="white-space:pre">     </span>CA<span style="white-space:pre">   </span>MAY<span style="white-space:pre">  </span>use<span style="white-space:pre">  </span>the<span style="white-space:pre">  </span>documents<span style="white-space:pre">    </span>and<span style="white-space:pre">  </span>data<span style="white-space:pre"> </span></div><div>provided<span style="white-space:pre">      </span>in<span style="white-space:pre">   </span>Section<span style="white-space:pre">      </span>3.2<span style="white-space:pre">  </span>to<span style="white-space:pre">   </span>verify<span style="white-space:pre">       </span>certificate<span style="white-space:pre">  </span>information,<span style="white-space:pre"> </span>provided<span style="white-space:pre">     </span>that<span style="white-space:pre"> </span>the<span style="white-space:pre">  </span>CA<span style="white-space:pre">   </span>obtained<span style="white-space:pre">     </span>the<span style="white-space:pre">  </span>data<span style="white-space:pre"> </span>or<span style="white-space:pre">   </span>document<span style="white-space:pre">     </span></div><div>from<span style="white-space:pre">  </span>a<span style="white-space:pre">    </span>source<span style="white-space:pre">       </span>specified<span style="white-space:pre">    </span>under<span style="white-space:pre">        </span>Section<span style="white-space:pre">      </span>3.2<span style="white-space:pre">  </span>no<span style="white-space:pre">   </span>more<span style="white-space:pre"> </span>than<span style="white-space:pre"> </span>thirty‐nine<span style="white-space:pre">        </span>(39)<span style="white-space:pre"> </span>months<span style="white-space:pre">       </span>prior<span style="white-space:pre">        </span>to<span style="white-space:pre">   </span>issuing<span style="white-space:pre">      </span>the<span style="white-space:pre">  </span></div><div>Certificate."</div><div><br></div><div>Section 3.2 is tied to what the Applicant is requesting in the certificate:</div><div><br></div><div>So for there to be information to be reused, it needs to be obtained in the context of an Applicant. </div><div><br></div><div>And so the question is whether or not there can be an Applicant prior to a Certificate Request.</div><div><br></div><div>Section 1.6.1 establishes the Applicant as: "The<span style="white-space:pre">       </span>natural<span style="white-space:pre">      </span>person<span style="white-space:pre">       </span>or<span style="white-space:pre">   </span>Legal<span style="white-space:pre">        </span>Entity<span style="white-space:pre">       </span>that<span style="white-space:pre"> </span>applies<span style="white-space:pre">      </span>for<span style="white-space:pre">  </span>(or<span style="white-space:pre">  </span>seeks<span style="white-space:pre">        </span>renewal<span style="white-space:pre">      </span>of)<span style="white-space:pre">  </span>a<span style="white-space:pre">    </span>Certificate. Once<span style="white-space:pre">    </span>the<span style="white-space:pre">  </span></div><div>Certificate<span style="white-space:pre">   </span>issues,<span style="white-space:pre">      </span>the<span style="white-space:pre">  </span>Applicant<span style="white-space:pre">    </span>is<span style="white-space:pre">   </span>referred<span style="white-space:pre">     </span>to<span style="white-space:pre">   </span>as<span style="white-space:pre">   </span>the<span style="white-space:pre">  </span>Subscriber.<span style="white-space:pre">          </span>For<span style="white-space:pre">  </span>Certificates<span style="white-space:pre"> </span>issued<span style="white-space:pre">       </span>to<span style="white-space:pre">   </span>devices,<span style="white-space:pre">     </span>the<span style="white-space:pre">  </span></div><div>Applicant<span style="white-space:pre">     </span>is<span style="white-space:pre">   </span>the<span style="white-space:pre">  </span>entity<span style="white-space:pre">       </span>that<span style="white-space:pre"> </span>controls<span style="white-space:pre">     </span>or<span style="white-space:pre">   </span>operates<span style="white-space:pre">     </span>the<span style="white-space:pre">  </span>device<span style="white-space:pre">       </span>named<span style="white-space:pre">        </span>in<span style="white-space:pre">   </span>the<span style="white-space:pre">  </span>Certificate,<span style="white-space:pre"> </span>even<span style="white-space:pre"> </span>if<span style="white-space:pre">   </span>the<span style="white-space:pre">  </span>device<span style="white-space:pre">       </span>is<span style="white-space:pre">   </span></div><div>sending<span style="white-space:pre">       </span>the<span style="white-space:pre">  </span>actual<span style="white-space:pre">       </span>certificate<span style="white-space:pre">  </span>request.<span style="white-space:pre">     </span>"</div><div><br></div><div>I'm sure we can get into the game of debating whether 'applies for' is distinct from 'requests' (although I think that's not supported by the text itself, by virtue of the following sentence, but I'm sure we can misread it).</div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div>You asked if there was a reason to suggest the ordering must be different. My minimal suggestion was that the order must be:</div><div><br></div><div>- A Request, which includes the attestation of correctness (per 4.1.2)</div><div>- which establishes an Applicant (per 1.6.1)</div><div>- which then permits validation of the Applicant information (per 3.2)</div><div>- which can then be reused for subsequent Requests (per 4.2.1)</div><div><br></div><div>It would seem that you are advocating for an interpretation that establishes:</div><div>- An Applicant (by virtue of establishing an Applicant Representative - the party who has signed the Subscriber Agreement on behalf of the Applicant / acknowledges the TOU, per 1.6.1)</div><div>- which then permits validation of the Applicant information (per 3.2)</div><div>- Which then permits one or more Requests (per 4.1.2)</div><div>- Which then allows the validated information to be reused (per 4.2.1), or the reuse of a previously completed validation (per 3.2.2.4)</div><div><br></div><div>Is that a correct summary of the difference?</div></div></div></div>