[cabfpub] Ballot 89 Rewrite

[Rick Andrews]

It's all moot unless I can get two endorsers.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ben Wilson [mailto:ben at digicert.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, August 13, 2013 3:58 PM
> To: 'Ryan Sleevi'; Rick Andrews
> Cc: public at cabforum.org
> Subject: RE: [cabfpub] Ballot 89 Rewrite
> 
> It was my idea to combine the vote.  We can split the language to
> express
> two yes/no decisions.
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: public-bounces at cabforum.org [mailto:public-bounces at cabforum.org]
> On
> Behalf Of Ryan Sleevi
> Sent: Tuesday, August 13, 2013 4:44 PM
> To: Rick Andrews
> Cc: public at cabforum.org
> Subject: Re: [cabfpub] Ballot 89 Rewrite
> 
> 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_certificat
> es%20
> v1_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
> >
> _______________________________________________
> Public mailing list
> Public at cabforum.org
> https://cabforum.org/mailman/listinfo/public