[cabfpub] Pre-Ballot 126 - Operational Existence

[Ben Wilson]

To my recollection, this pre-ballot has not yet been fully discussed by this
group.  The EV Working Group circulated this pre-ballot for discussion, and
Moudrick asked for an explanation of why it is needed.  I explained that
this is simply re-wording the language to make it easier to understand.
Others have commented that it shouldn't create a lot of debate, except for
the fact that it has a lot of redlining.  I think Jeremy and Cecilia are
seeking another endorser.

 

Here is an explanation of the changes.  

 

First, although not directly related to this ballot, but helpful for
explanatory purposes about it, this section is meant to address operational
existence.  In drafting the original language we knew we could not establish
presumptively that an organization was actually doing business because that
would be too hard, but we wanted to have a way to say that the organization
had more than just a legal existence or a physical address, and we settled
on "an ability to do business".  

 

Unlike other sections of the EV Guidelines, the current section 11.5.1 loses
the simplicity of that approach in verbiage that contains verification
steps.   (Other sections state just the requirement, with a following
section that sets forth the verification steps.)   Fixing this problem with
11.5.1 is the motivation behind this proposed change.

Thus, language is removed from section 11.5.1 and placed in 11.5.2 so that
11.5.1 simply says, "The CA MUST verify that the Applicant has the ability
to engage in business by verifying the Applicant's, or
Affiliate/Parent/Subsidiary Company's, operational existence," which I think
makes a lot of sense.  

 

The ballot then proposes that section 11.5.2 begin, "To verify the
Applicant's ability to engage in business, the CA MUST verify the
operational existence of the Applicant, or its Affiliate/Parent/Subsidiary
Company, by: .."  The current introduction to 11.5.2 only refers to
"operational existence" and not "an ability to engage in business".  An
"ability to engage in business" is added to 11.5.2 to keep it congruent with
11.5.1.

 

Section 11.5.2:

 

Subsection (1) three-year existence in 11.5.2 comes from moving it down from
11.5.1.

 

Subsection (2) QIIS/QTIS listing also comes down from 11.5.1.   

 

Subsection (3) consists of wording changes to maintain parallelism
throughout sections 11.5.1 and 11.5.2.

 

As Jeremy explained to Moudrick in an email about this proposal, the word
"or" between subsections (3) and (4) does not make section 11.5.2 any
different substantively from how sections 11.5.1 and 11.5.2 currently exist.

 

Subsection (4) is essentially the same.

 

In summation, this proposed ballot is only a clean-up of the existing
language, as far as I can tell.

I'd like to put this ballot on the agenda for discussion during our call
July 10th in two weeks.  

 

Thanks,

 

Ben

 

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.cabforum.org/pipermail/public/attachments/20140626/28dc7724/attachment-0002.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: Pre-Ballot-126-redlined.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 86635 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.cabforum.org/pipermail/public/attachments/20140626/28dc7724/attachment-0002.pdf>
-------------- 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/20140626/28dc7724/attachment.p7s>