[cabfpub] Ballot 96 - Wildcard Certificates and New gTLDs

Wed Feb 20 20:20:03 UTC 2013

KEYNECTIS votes NO

(same reasons than StartCom)

From: public-bounces at cabforum.org [mailto:public-bounces at cabforum.org] On
Behalf Of Jeremy Rowley
Sent: 05 February 2013 21:39
To: public at cabforum.org
Subject: [cabfpub] Ballot 96 - Wildcard Certificates and New gTLDs

Hi everyone,

This is the formal ballot on wildcards and gTLDs.  This ballot will
require the uniform use of wildcard characters in certificates and
initiate an early phase-out of gTLDs approved by ICANN.  Once passed, CAs
will need to stop issuing certificates with the new gTLDs and revoke them
120 days after ICANN has signed an agreement with the gTLD operator.  If
the ballot is approved, the [www.icann.org] references in the ballot will
be replaced with a link provided by ICANN that all CAs can use to check
for approved gTLDs.

Thanks,

Jeremy

Jeremy Rowley made the following motion, and Rick Andrews and Steve
Roylance endorsed it:

... Motion Begins ...

... Erratum Begins ...

Add the following as new Section 11.1.3:

11.1    Authorization by Domain Name Registrant

11.1.3 Wildcard Domain Validation

Before issuing a certificate with a wildcard character (*) in a CN or
subjectAltName of type DNS-ID, the CA MUST establish and follow a
documented procedure† that determines if the wildcard character occurs in
the first label position to the left of a “registry-controlled” label or
“public suffix” (e.g. “*.com”, “*.co.uk”, see RFC 6454 Section 8.2 for
further explanation).

If a wildcard would fall within the label immediately to the left of a
registry-controlled† or public suffix, CAs MUST refuse issuance unless the
applicant proves its rightful control of the entire Domain Namespace.
(e.g. CAs MUST NOT issue “*.co.uk” or “*.local”, but MAY issue
“*.example.com” to Example Co.).

Prior to September 1, 2013, each CA MUST revoke any valid certificate that
does not comply with this section of the Requirements.

†Determination of what is “registry-controlled” versus  the registerable
portion of a Country Code Top-Level Domain Namespace is not standardized
at the time of writing and is not a property of the DNS itself. Current
best practice is to consult a “public suffix list” such as
http://publicsuffix.org/.  If the process for making this determination is
standardized by an RFC, then such a procedure SHOULD be preferred.

Add the following as new Section 11.1.4:

11.1.4 New gTLD Domains

CAs SHOULD NOT issue Certificates containing a new gTLD under
consideration by ICANN. Prior to issuing a Certificate containing an
Internal Server Name with a gTLD that ICANN has announced as under
consideration to make operational, the CA MUST provide a warning to the
applicant that the gTLD may soon become resolvable and that, at that time,
the CA will revoke the Certificate unless the applicant promptly registers
the domain name.

Within 30 days after ICANN has approved a new gTLD for operation, as
evidenced by  publication of a contract with the gTLD operator on
[www.icann.org] each CA MUST (1) compare the new gTLD against the CA’s
records of valid certificates and (2) cease issuing Certificates
containing a Domain Name that includes the new gTLD until after the CA has
first verified the Subscriber's control over or exclusive right to use the
Domain Name  in accordance with Section 11.1.

Within 120 days after the publication of a contract for a new gTLD is
published on [www.icann.org], CAs MUST revoke each Certificate containing
a Domain Name that includes the new gTLD unless the Subscriber is either
the Domain Name Registrant or can demonstrate control over the Domain
Name.

... Erratum Ends ...

The review period for this ballot shall commence at 21:00 UTC on 6
February 2013 and will close at 21:00 UTC on 13 February 2013. Unless the
motion is withdrawn during the review period, the voting period will start
immediately thereafter and will close at 21:00 UTC on 20 February 2013.
Votes must be cast by posting an on-list reply to this thread.

... Motions ends ...

A vote in favor of the motion must indicate a clear 'yes' in the response.

A vote against must indicate a clear 'no' in the response. A vote to
abstain must indicate a clear 'abstain' in the response. Unclear responses
will not be counted. The latest vote received from any representative of a
voting member before the close of the voting period will be counted.

Voting members are listed here: http://www.cabforum.org/forum.html

In order for the motion to be adopted, two thirds or more of the votes
cast by members in the CA category and one half or more of the votes cast
by members in the browser category must be in favor. Also, at least seven
members must participate in the ballot, either by voting in favor, voting
against or abstaining.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.cabforum.org/pipermail/public/attachments/20130220/16c4affc/attachment-0003.html>