[cabfpub] FW: Ballot 122 - Verified Method of Communication

Wed Apr 23 23:38:07 UTC 2014

>From Tanel Kuusk - message did not make it to list--

Begin forwarded message:

> From: Tanel Kuusk <tanel.kuusk at sk.ee>
> Subject: Re: [cabfpub] Ballot 122 - Verified Method of Communication
> Date: 17 Apr 2014 10:27:20 GMT+3
> To: <public at cabforum.org>
> 
> Hello,
> 
> I agree with Ben that being conservative and restricting the instant communication channels to ITU-T E.164 publicly routed numbering scheme is a good idea.
> 
> But the explicit listing of fixed, mobile, fax and SMS raised questions for me also. The fixed and mobile seem to restrict transport channels (is VoIP allowed?), whereas fax and SMS are more like presentation modes (is MMS also ok?). On the other hand, if the idea is to accept only a subset of ITU-T E.164 compliant communication methods, then these should be listed more clearly.
> 
> BR,
> 
> Tanel Kuusk
> Sertifitseerimiskeskus
> 
> 
> 
> On 16 Apr 2014, at 18:33, Ben Wilson <ben at digicert.com> wrote:
> 
>> I think if anyone wants to propose that we go beyond email or POTS (to things like Messenger and Skype-Skype), then the proponent should put forth a ballot that explains the verification steps that would have to be performed to ensure the reliability of that communication process, and I would not want anyone to be holding a patent or patent application on that process.  I was also hoping that we wouldn’t have to get into a debate about the vulnerabilities or merits of using email vs. those other methods.   Also, if someone wants to layer those other methods (like video conferencing) on top of the other acceptable ones for use in other day-to-day communications, then I don’t think they should be prohibited, but I think that is another issue/discussion. 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> From: public-bounces at cabforum.org [mailto:public-bounces at cabforum.org] On Behalf Of Erwann Abalea
>> Sent: Wednesday, April 16, 2014 8:18 AM
>> To: Ben Wilson; public at cabforum.org
>> Subject: Re: [cabfpub] Ballot 122 - Verified Method of Communication
>> 
>> 
>> It can, but it's not mandatory. Skype to Skype doesn't, for example. Neither does XMPP, nor Yahoo Messenger, ...
>> My question was more: is an email address a "Verified Method of Communication"? Is it more verified than a Skype handle? Or a verified Twitter account?
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> -- 
>> Erwann ABALEA
>> 
>> Le 16/04/2014 15:37, Ben Wilson a écrit :
>> 
>> Doesn't Skype interface with the ITU-T E.164 POTS network using a numbers-only assigned route?
>> 
>> From: Erwann Abalea
>> Sent: ‎4/‎16/‎2014 2:51 AM
>> To: public at cabforum.org
>> Subject: Re: [cabfpub] Ballot 122 - Verified Method of Communication
>> 
>> Is the ITU-T E.164 reference used to disallow Skype or similar services?
>> Is an email address considered more "verified" than a Skype/whatever identifier?
>> 
>> 
>> -- 
>> Erwann ABALEA
>> 
>> Le 15/04/2014 22:57, Ben Wilson a écrit :
>> 
>> Ballot 122 - Verified Method of Communication
>> 
>> The EV Guidelines Working Group has completed its review of Section 11.4.2 of the EV Guidelines (Telephone Number for Applicant’s Place of Business). The purpose of the review was to "develop a more international process for verifying contact information,” especially to transition away from a landline-centric focus. The purpose of Section 11.4.2 has been to ensure a means for communicating with an organization (to verify the authority of EV roles and ensure that it was appropriately aware of the certificate request) and to provide additional evidence of an organization's existence. This is maintained by the proposed replacement language.
>> 
>> Cecilia Kam of Symantec made the following motion, and Rich Smith from Comodo and Jeremy Rowley from DigiCert have endorsed it.
>> 
>> Motion Begins
>> 
>> 1. Create a new definition for a "Verified Method of Communication" in the EV Guidelines:
>> 
>> " Verified Method of Communication: The use of a public telecommunication routing number (ITU-E.164-compliant fixed, mobile, fax, or SMS), an email address, or a postal delivery address, confirmed by the CA in accordance with Section 11.4.2 of the Guidelines as a reliable way of communicating with the Applicant."
>> 
>> 2. DELETE Section 11.4.2 (Telephone Number for Applicant's Place of Business) and INSERT the following:
>> 
>> "11.4.2 Verified Method of Communication
>> 
>> (1) Verification Requirements: To assist in communicating with the Applicant and confirming that the Applicant is aware of and approves issuance, the CA MUST establish at least one Verified Method of Communication with the Applicant.
>> 
>> (2) Acceptable Methods of Verification: To verify a Verified Method of Communication with the Applicant, the CA MUST:
>> 
>> (A) Verify that the number or address belongs to the Applicant, or a Parent or Affiliate of the Applicant, by matching it with one of the Applicant’s Places of Business in: (i) records provided by the applicable phone company; (ii) a QGIS, QTIS, or QIIS; or (iii) a Verified Legal Opinion or Verified Accountant Letter; and
>> 
>> (B) Confirm the Verified Method of Communication by using it to obtain an affirmative response sufficient to enable a reasonable person to conclude that the Applicant, or a Parent or Affiliate of Applicant, can be contacted reliably by using the Verified Method of Communication.
>> 
>> 3. In subsection 11.13.1(1)(D), REPLACE "Telephone number for Place of Business" with "Verified Method of Communication."
>> 
>> 4. REPLACE subsection 11.13.3(1)(C) with "The Verified Method of Communication required by Section 11.4.2, but still MUST perform the verification required by Section 11.4.2(2)(B);"
>> 
>> Motion Ends
>> 
>> The review period for this ballot shall commence at 2200 UTC on Tuesday, 15 April 2014, and will close at 2200 UTC on Tuesday, 22 April 2014. Unless the motion is withdrawn during the review period, the voting period will start immediately thereafter and will close at 2200 UTC on Tuesday, 29 April 2014. Votes must be cast by posting an on-list reply to this thread.
>> 
>> 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:https://cabforum.org/members/
>> 
>> In order for the motion to be adopted, two thirds or more of the votes cast by members in the CA category and greater than 50% of the votes cast by members in the browser category must be in favor. Also, at least six members must participate in the ballot, either by voting in favor, voting against, or abstaining.
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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
> 

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/pkcs7-signature
Size: 5453 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.cabforum.org/pipermail/public/attachments/20140423/110c2709/attachment.p7s>