[cabfpub] [cabfman] Ballot 121 - EVGL Insurance Requirements

Mon May 5 07:20:40 UTC 2014

Izenpe votes YES

I´ve read all comments and I think that a rewording may be needed to avoid that a CA does not have an insurance because of any reasons, but I also think (from the beginning) that this had to be changed time ago and adapt to what is intended as Eddy pointed out.

As for clarifying (or not) here´s what the new EU regulation says on "insurance":

This Regulation provides for the liability of all trust service providers. In particular, it establishes the liability regime under which all trust service providers should be liable for damage caused to any natural or legal person due to failure to comply with the obligations under this Regulation. In order to facilitate the assessment of financial risk that trust service providers might have to bear or that they should cover by insurance policies, this Regulation allows trust service providers to set limitations, under certain conditions, on the use of the services they provide and not to be liable for damages arising from the use of services exceeding such limitations. Customers should be duly informed about the limitations in advance. Those limitations should be recognisable by a third party, e.g. by including information thereabout in the terms and conditions of the service provided or through other recognisable means. For the purposes of giving effect to these principles, this Regulation should be applied in accordance with national rules on liability. Therefore, this Regulation does not affect those rules, for example, on definition of damages, intention, negligence, on relevant applicable procedural rules

And article 24  on Requirements for qualified trust service providers says:

with regard to the risk of liability for damages in accordance with Article 13, maintain sufficient financial resources and/or obtain appropriate liability insurance, in accordance with national law;

Regards

Iñigo Barreira
Responsable del Área técnica
i-barreira at izenpe.net

945067705

ERNE! Baliteke mezu honen zatiren bat edo mezu osoa legez babestuta egotea. Mezua badu bere hartzailea. Okerreko helbidera heldu bada (helbidea gaizki idatzi, transmisioak huts egin) eman abisu igorleari, korreo honi erantzuna. KONTUZ!
ATENCION! Este mensaje contiene informacion privilegiada o confidencial a la que solo tiene derecho a acceder el destinatario. Si usted lo recibe por error le agradeceriamos que no hiciera uso de la informacion y que se pusiese en contacto con el remitente.

De: management-bounces at cabforum.org [mailto:management-bounces at cabforum.org] En nombre de N. ATILLA BILER
Enviado el: viernes, 02 de mayo de 2014 13:40
Para: public at cabforum.org
CC: CAB Forum Man
Asunto: Re: [cabfman] [cabfpub] Ballot 121 - EVGL Insurance Requirements

Hi all,

Just to restate what I said yesterday, there may be a need for rewording the ballot that will put clear alternatives for the current insurance scheme or more internationally applicable insurance requirements may be proposed under the current scheme. 

Otherwise, simply accepting this ballot will cause ambiguity, whereas totally rejecting this ballot and ignoring the difficulties of the insurance requirements (in terms of local jurisdiction and insurance legislation of different countries) will sustain applicability problems.

For now, our vote is YES as Imren stated in her message below...

Best regards,

N. Atilla BILER

Business Development Manager

TURKTRUST Inc.

Address: Hollanda Cad. 696.Sok. No:7 Yildiz 06550 Cankaya / ANKARA - TURKEY

Phone  : +90 (312) 439 10 00

Mobile : +90 (530) 314 24 05

Fax         : +90 (312) 439 10 01

E-mail   : atilla.biler at turktrust.com.tr <mailto:atilla.biler at turktrust.com.tr>  

Web      : www.turktrust.com.tr <http://www.turktrust.com.tr/>  

From: İmren Altepe [mailto:imren.altepe at turktrust.com.tr] 
Sent: Friday, May 02, 2014 12:13 PM
To: public at cabforum.org
Subject: RE: [cabfpub] Ballot 121 - EVGL Insurance Requirements

TURKTRUST votes YES.

From: public-bounces at cabforum.org [mailto:public-bounces at cabforum.org] On Behalf Of Ben Wilson
Sent: Thursday, April 24, 2014 3:17 AM
To: public at cabforum.org
Subject: [cabfpub] Ballot 121 - EVGL Insurance Requirements

Ballot 121 - EVGL Insurance Requirements 

The EV Guidelines Working Group is considering updating the EV Guidelines in a number of areas.  Kirk Hall of Trend Micro hereby makes the following motion, and Moudrick Dadashov from Skaitmeninio sertifikavimo centras (SSC) and Richard Wang from WoSign have endorsed it.  

This ballot is to amend the current EV Guidelines (EVGL) Sec. 8.4 requirements as stated below.  The reasons in favor of the Ballot are stated after the proposed amendments.

Motion begins:

Amend EV Guideline Section 8.4 to read as follows:

EV Guideline Section 8.4 - Insurance

Each CA SHALL maintain the following insurance related to their its respective performance and obligations under these Guidelines in accordance with the the minimum insurance requirements (if any) as are applicable to the CA under the law of its jurisdiction of incorporation or registration. :

(A) Commercial General Liability insurance (occurrence form) with policy limits of at least two million US dollars in coverage; and

(B) Professional Liability/Errors and Omissions insurance, with policy limits of at least five million US dollars in coverage, and including coverage for (i) claims for damages arising out of an act, error, or omission, unintentional breach of contract, or neglect in issuing or maintaining EV Certificates, and (ii) claims for damages arising out of infringement of the proprietary rights of any third party (excluding copyright, and trademark infringement), and invasion of privacy and advertising injury.

Such insurance MUST be with a company rated no less than A- as to Policy Holder's Rating in the current edition of Best's Insurance Guide (or with an association of companies each of the members of which are so rated).

A CA MAY self-insure for liabilities that arise from such party's performance and obligations under these Guidelines provided that it has at least five hundred million US dollars in liquid assets based on audited financial statements in the past twelve months, and a quick ratio (ratio of liquid assets to current liabilities) of not less than 1.0.

Motion Ends 

The reasons for this proposed amendment are as follows:

·         The insurance requirements were created basically out of thin air during initial drafting of the EVGL, without any particular analysis of claims against CAs, usefulness of insurance, availability of appropriate insurance, or necessary insurance levels.  The main purpose of an insurance requirement in the EVGL was to impress the public with the responsibility of CAs who issue EV certificates.  However, as noted below, these reasons aren't really justified by the facts.

·         The types and amounts of insurance required under EVGL 8.4 are North America-centric, and are not easily available in other world regions (or not available at all).  Insurance for damages "arising out of infringement of the proprietary rights of any third party" are generally not available in many professional liability/errors and omissions policies.  The requirement is arguably unfair to CAs outside North America.

·         The types of insurance required under EVGL 8.4 are not designed to provide relief or compensation to injured customers or the public who rely on EV certs issued by a CA.  Both types of insurance are intended primarily to protect the issuing CA, not injured claimants, and the insurers will try to avoid or defeat all claims from claimants.  The policies typically include defense costs within the policy limits, so an insurance policy might be entirely consumed by defense costs to protect the issuing CA, with nothing left to pay claims to claimants.

·         Commercial General Liability insurance doesn't really help customers or relying parties who claim injury from a bad cert - these policies are more designed to protect the CA from things like people falling on a slippery floor in the CA's offices, etc.  Likewise, professional liability/E&O coverage will only pay after defending the CA if a judgment is likely or rendered, and the insurer may try to avoid coverage if the issuing CA has done some bad things.  For example, Diginotar's insurer has denied all coverage because Diginotar hid its breach and failed to report the problem for several weeks, compounding the damages and violating its obligations to the insurers - so the insurance was worthless.  These policies also do not cover contract claims from customers (e.g., a claim of breach of contract by the CA such as failure to issue a proper cert).

·         Some have suggested that even if the current insurance requirements don't actually protect the public or customers, they are nevertheless useful as a "show of seriousness" by a CA.  If that is a worthwhile objective, we may as well require other irrelevant things instead like proof of auto insurance or a minimum office space size - none of these qualifications are really relevant to whether a CA operates competently and in compliance with requirements.  Instead, we rely mostly on (1) annual performance audits, and (2) browser root programs (and consequences of failure) to confirm competence and compliance.

·         VeriSign's previous general counsel for ten years has said VeriSign never faced a claim for damages from any certs during that time.  In most cases, bad certs are simply revoked and possibly reissued.

·         Even though there have been virtually no claims against issuing CAs, buying the minimum insurance can be expensive for smaller CAs.  There is typically a minimum premium of $25,000 or more per year with a significant deductible, even though the CA will likely never have a covered claim.  That's a waste of money.

·         In the Diginotar case, apparently claims were made against the company's insurers (perhaps from investors for loss of value of the company when it was shut down).  In any case, Diginotar's insurer denied all coverage for the claims based on Diginotar's bad acts and breach of its obligations to the insurer.  There would be no possibly insurance coverage for customers or relying parties, so the insurance was of no value.

·         Some countries have their own minimum insurance requirements for companies incorporated or registered in their jurisdiction, while many do not.  The CA/Browser Forum should defer to these decisions by the governing jurisdictions and require compliance with local standards - or just delete Section 8.4 entirely, as every CA must already comply with applicable laws.

·         Finally, under current EVGL Sec. 8.4, large companies like Trend Micro get to opt out of the insurance requirements because they meet the stated financial requirements.  This is arguably an unfair advantage for large companies over small ones.

The review period for this ballot shall commence at 2200 UTC on Wednesday, 23 April 2014, and will close at 2200 UTC on Wednesday, 30 April 2014. Unless the motion is withdrawn during the review period, the voting period will start immediately thereafter and will close at 2200 UTC on Wednesday, 7 May 2014. Votes must be cast by posting an on-list reply to this thread. 

A vote in favor of the motion must indicate a clear 'yes' in the response. A vote against must indicate a clear 'no' in the response. A vote to abstain must indicate a clear 'abstain' in the response. Unclear responses will not be counted. The latest vote received from any representative of a voting member before the close of the voting period will be counted. Voting members are listed here: https://cabforum.org/members/ <https://cabforum.org/members/>  

In order for the motion to be adopted, two thirds or more of the votes cast by members in the CA category and greater than 50% of the votes cast by members in the browser category must be in favor. Also, at least six members must participate in the ballot, either by voting in favor, voting against, or abstaining. 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.cabforum.org/pipermail/public/attachments/20140505/d29fd1c8/attachment-0003.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image001.png
Type: image/png
Size: 19121 bytes
Desc: image001.png
URL: <http://lists.cabforum.org/pipermail/public/attachments/20140505/d29fd1c8/attachment-0003.png>