[cabfpub] Ballot 89 Rewrite

Ryan Sleevi sleevi at google.com
Tue Aug 13 22:44:09 UTC 2013


Rick,

It appears you're actually proposing two ballots here. While I
appreciate the desire for efficiency, it does seem against the spirit
of the forum where a vote for "No" is in fact a vote "Yes", simply for
a different motion. Abstaining is possible, but equally seems counter
to the purpose of abstentions.

It does appear that, like so many other work products of the CA/B
Forum, our bylaws are ambiguous with respect to the expected form of
motions. The closest interpretation would be Section 2.2 (e) of the
bylaws, which suggestions all Ballot Questions shall be Yes/No -
indicating a ballot question is needed here.

Rather than positioning your latest proposal as "all or nothing",
perhaps it would be more prudent to first discuss whether or not the
membership agrees to withdraw the present guidelines. It would seem
that if such a vote passed, it would give a clear signal whether there
was sufficient and strong enough interest for updating it.

Regards,
Ryan

On Tue, Aug 13, 2013 at 3:22 PM, Rick Andrews <Rick_Andrews at symantec.com> wrote:
> I am withdrawing the current Ballot 89 language and replacing it as outlined
> below.  A while back, I volunteered to update the Guidance to Application
> Developers (version 1, dated 2009, at
> https://www.cabforum.org/Guidelines_for_the_processing_of_EV_certificates%20v1_0.pdf).
> Based on comments received, edits were made to both the guideline document
> and the ballot.  However, more recently I began to understand that none of
> the browser vendors were supportive of my changes.  Of particular note, I
> received objections to some provisions in version 2, but then I saw that the
> same language currently exists in the 2009 version on the CABF website
> (i.e., that a browser should drop EV treatment for certificates that don’t
> meet crypto requirements (Section 10) and that browsers should adjust their
> Root Embedding Programs accordingly (Section 7)).  So my conclusion is that
> browser vendors might not be supportive of version 1 either.  However, as a
> final effort, I have edited the document again and renamed it to:
> “Recommendations for the Processing of EV SSL Certificates.”  You can view
> changes from version 1 in the attached documents.
>
> Therefore, I am proposing that Ballot 89 go forward as follows, if I can get
> two endorsers:
>
> Ballot 93 - Reasons for Revocation (BR issues 6, 8, 10, 21)
>
> Rick Andrews (Symantec) made the following motion, endorsed by ? and ?:
>
> --- Motion begins ---
>
> A “YES” vote on Ballot 89 means that the member votes to remove the 2009
> Version 1.0 of “GUIDELINES for the PROCESSING of EXTENDED VALIDATION
> CERTIFICATES” from the public CA Browser Forum website and replace it with
> the attached “RECOMMENDATIONS for the PROCESSING of EXTENDED VALIDATION
> CERTIFICATES”.
>
> A “NO” vote on the ballot means that the member votes to remove the 2009
> Version 1.0 of “GUIDELINES for the PROCESSING of EXTENDED VALIDATION
> CERTIFICATES” on the public CA Browser Forum website and not replace it.
>
> ... Motion ends ...
>
> -Rick
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Public mailing list
> Public at cabforum.org
> https://cabforum.org/mailman/listinfo/public
>



More information about the Public mailing list