[cabfpub] Ballot 121 - EVGL Insurance Requirements

[Ryan Sleevi]

I'm generally supportive of this, if only because the vast majority of CA's
CP/CPSes leave them enough wiggle room to drive a truck through, while
still not being an insurable incident.

CA accidentally revokes a certificate? Most CPSes seem to leave enough
verbiage in that the CA is not 'on the hook' for that.
CA accidentally misissues a certificate? Most CPSes seem to leave enough
verbiage in their Subscriber/Relying Party agreements that (to a non-lawyer
such as myself) that they could argue it was the subscriber's fault.

We discussed this during the Mountain View F2F, where I raised similar
remarks.

I think absent clear guidance from the CA/B Forum on
  1) What are events that a CA should be liable for
  2) What language is unacceptable in a CP/CPS (in terms of disclaiming
liability/imposing requirements)

That requiring insurance has more the effect of theatre than security.

That is, I think the practical reality is things are already wildly
inconsistent and largely inapplicable for the incidents that most of us
would consider inappropriate and grave for trust in the ecosystem.


On Thu, May 1, 2014 at 1:59 PM, Eddy Nigg <eddy_nigg at startcom.org> wrote:

>
>
> 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  Blog:  Join the Revolution!<http://blog.startcom.org>
> Twitter:  Follow Me <http://twitter.com/eddy_nigg>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Public mailing list
> Public at cabforum.org
> https://cabforum.org/mailman/listinfo/public
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.cabforum.org/pipermail/public/attachments/20140501/729be220/attachment-0003.html>