[cabfpub] Ballot 121 - EVGL Insurance Requirements

[Moudrick M. Dadashov]

Gerv, could you please advise me the bug link or just the #?

Thanks,
M.D.

On 5/7/2014 2:56 PM, Gervase Markham wrote:
> Hi Kirk,
>
> On 05/05/14 23:10, kirk_hall at trendmicro.com wrote:
>> Gerv - my frustration is that the proponents of keeping the current
>> EVGL insurance requirements the same have never said "we need to keep
>> the current insurance requirements because the insurance will cover
>> claims from the public and customers that may arise from a CA's bad
>> practices".  In fact, the current insurance requirements are *not*
>> relevant at all to claims from the public and customers from a bad
>> cert -- and no one has said they are relevant.  I ran an insurance
>> company for 12 years, so I have some familiarity with this area.
> I admit I am not qualified to form an opinion on the value of this
> insurance. However, I do not feel I can vote to remove the requirement
> without consulting a disinterested party who does.
>
> I have opened a bug in Mozilla's bug-tracking system to ask our legal
> team to make an assessment of the usefulness of this insurance in
> protecting domain owners and end users, compared to a cost to CAs in the
> region of $30,000 a year per CA. Based on that assessment, we will form
> a view on this question.
>
> However, that analysis will not be complete before 2200 UTC tonight, I'm
> afraid :-( And in the mean time, our vote stands.
>
> Gerv
> _______________________________________________
> Public mailing list
> Public at cabforum.org
> https://cabforum.org/mailman/listinfo/public


-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/pkcs7-signature
Size: 3663 bytes
Desc: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
URL: <http://lists.cabforum.org/pipermail/public/attachments/20140518/01aaea31/attachment-0001.p7s>