[cabfpub] Ballot 121 - EVGL Insurance Requirements

[Jeremy Rowley]

I am in favor of that approach rather than gutting the entire requirement.
We haven't adequately explored the alternatives and possible revisions to
the language to know whether a simple change could satisfy the current
concerns.

 

Jeremy

 

From: public-bounces at cabforum.org [mailto:public-bounces at cabforum.org] On
Behalf Of Eddy Nigg
Sent: Thursday, May 1, 2014 10:54 AM
To: public at cabforum.org
Subject: Re: [cabfpub] Ballot 121 - EVGL Insurance Requirements

 



On 05/01/2014 07:45 PM, Jeremy Rowley wrote: 

The ability to issue EV certificates should be backed by CAs with the
infrastructure to support them.  The insurance should cover end users if a
CA does not follow its CP or CPS. 


I've asked already....assuming that the current insurances don't provide
what we expect them to do, what exactly would be the alternative? Is there
something we can improve, change, simplify? Maybe we can relax some of the
requirements (insurer profile, insurance type) and define better what it
should include.

-- 


Regards 


 


Signer: 

Eddy Nigg, COO/CTO


 

StartCom Ltd. <http://www.startcom.org> 


XMPP: 

startcom at startcom.org


Blog: 

Join the Revolution! <http://blog.startcom.org> 


Twitter: 

Follow Me <http://twitter.com/eddy_nigg> 


 

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.cabforum.org/pipermail/public/attachments/20140501/5eb6f6e5/attachment-0003.html>