[cabfpub] Ballot 121 - EVGL Insurance Requirements
Eddy Nigg
eddy_nigg at startcom.org
Thu May 1 20:59:07 UTC 2014
On 05/01/2014 07:56 PM, Jeremy Rowley wrote:
>
> 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.
>
I can't be against saving expensive insurances if the effect on having
them or not would be exactly the same. However we would take out
probably a different/similar insurance in any case as we wouldn't want
to be completely unprotected.
I'm not an insurance specialist and don't really know what the options
would be, if at all. We followed the EV requirement more or less blindly
because it's there and I'm actually a bit surprised that it's perceived
as entire waste of money by some.
But then, Kirk is a lawyer that might have that knowledge - but Kirk, I
believe we need more information and also an alternative before we can
vote on it.
--
Regards
Signer: Eddy Nigg, COO/CTO
StartCom Ltd. <http://www.startcom.org>
XMPP: startcom at 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/20140501/818fa3ad/attachment-0003.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/pkcs7-signature
Size: 4540 bytes
Desc: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
URL: <http://lists.cabforum.org/pipermail/public/attachments/20140501/818fa3ad/attachment-0001.p7s>
More information about the Public
mailing list