<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=us-ascii">
<meta name="Generator" content="Microsoft Word 15 (filtered medium)">
<!--[if !mso]><style>v\:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
o\:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
w\:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
.shape {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
</style><![endif]--><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:11.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:#0563C1;
text-decoration:underline;}
a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:#954F72;
text-decoration:underline;}
span.EmailStyle17
{mso-style-type:personal;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
color:windowtext;}
span.EmailStyle18
{mso-style-type:personal-reply;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
color:#1F497D;}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;
font-size:10.0pt;}
@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="#0563C1" vlink="#954F72">
<div class="WordSection1">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:#1F497D">I would vote for just correcting Ballot 190 per the changes in Ballot 204 (that was effectively our intent with the two ballots – 204 was drafted after 190) without an errata ballot, but if anyone wants an errata
ballot, that’s fine too.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<div>
<div style="border:none;border-top:solid #E1E1E1 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0in 0in 0in">
<p class="MsoNormal"><b>From:</b> Public [mailto:public-bounces@cabforum.org] <b>
On Behalf Of </b>Ben Wilson via Public<br>
<b>Sent:</b> Thursday, September 21, 2017 8:23 AM<br>
<b>To:</b> CABFPub <public@cabforum.org><br>
<b>Subject:</b> [EXTERNAL][cabfpub] Ballot 190 and BR v. 1.5.2<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">With passage of Ballot 190, I have created a new version 1.5.2 of the Baseline Requirements, which I’ll post shortly to the Forum website. However, we’ve noticed in creating this version 1.5.2 that Ballot 190 was drafted before passage
of Ballot 204, which removed “or Delegated Third Party” from section 3.2.2.4. Ballot 190 inadvertently added “or Delegated Third Party” back into the Baseline Requirements. So Rich Smith, Tim Hollebeek and I are going to propose an errata ballot to re-remove
“or Delegated Third Party” from section 3.2.2.4, unless everyone thinks that the intent of Ballot 204 should supersede the contradictory language in Ballot 190.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:2.0pt"><b><span style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:#0174C3">Ben Wilson, JD, CISA, CISSP<o:p></o:p></span></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:2.0pt"><span style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:#686869">VP Compliance<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:2.0pt"><span style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:#686869">+1 801 701 9678<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><img width="133" height="29" id="Picture_x0020_1" src="cid:image002.jpg@01D332BD.F9013510"><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
</body>
</html>