<html><head><meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8"></head><body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; line-break: after-white-space;" class=""><br class=""><div><br class=""><blockquote type="cite" class=""><div class="">On 31 Aug 2017, at 1:21 pm, Kirk Hall via Public <<a href="mailto:public@cabforum.org" class="">public@cabforum.org</a>> wrote:</div><br class="Apple-interchange-newline"><div class=""><div class="WordSection1" style="page: WordSection1; font-family: HelveticaNeue; font-size: 12px; font-style: normal; font-variant-caps: normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal; text-align: start; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px;"><div style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt; font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Times New Roman", serif;" class=""><span style="font-size: 11pt; font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; color: rgb(31, 73, 125);" class="">There is a well-established legal doctrine of “Impossibility”, which excuses performance of a requirement under certain limited conditions.<o:p class=""></o:p></span></div><div style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt; font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Times New Roman", serif;" class=""><span style="font-size: 11pt; font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; color: rgb(31, 73, 125);" class=""><o:p class=""> </o:p></span></div><div style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt; font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Times New Roman", serif;" class=""><span style="font-size: 11pt; font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; color: rgb(31, 73, 125);" class=""><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impossibility" style="color: purple; text-decoration: underline;" class="">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impossibility</a><o:p class=""></o:p></span></div><div style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt; font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Times New Roman", serif;" class=""><span style="font-size: 11pt; font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; color: rgb(31, 73, 125);" class=""><o:p class=""> </o:p></span></div><div style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt; font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Times New Roman", serif;" class=""><span style="font-size: 11pt; font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; color: rgb(31, 73, 125);" class="">In limited cases, it seems that doctrine could apply to the BRs. <o:p class=""></o:p></span></div><div style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt; font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Times New Roman", serif;" class=""><span style="font-size: 11pt; font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; color: rgb(31, 73, 125);" class=""><o:p class=""> </o:p></span></div><div style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt; font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Times New Roman", serif;" class=""><span style="font-size: 11pt; font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; color: rgb(31, 73, 125);" class="">Here, we assumed every jurisdiction would provide a registration number or date when passing the EVGL rule, but we were incorrect. It seems that substitute performance by a CA would fulfill the spirit and purpose of the EVGL rule (where absolute compliance is impossible), which doesn’t bother me. In the meantime, we should also amend the EVGL to allow for this case (where there is no registration number or date).</span></div></div></div></blockquote><div><br class=""></div><div>In general, for EV certificate issuance, I believe that if a certificate can’t be issued under the EV criteria, it must not be issued. It’s expected that some organizations or entities will not be able to get an EV certificate for one reason or another, and “there is no way to uniquely identify the entity” is definitely one of those reasons.</div></div></body></html>