[cabfpub] Ballot 121 - EVGL Insurance Requirements

[Eddy Nigg]

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>