[cabfpub] Ballot 133 - Insurance Requirements for EV Issuers

[Gervase Markham]

On 21/10/14 21:58, Kelvin Yiu wrote:
> Microsoft abstains, on the reason that the ballot does not directly
> improve the security of CA operations or benefit end users. Microsoft
> does support simplifying CA insurance requirements in the EV guidelines
> and will support a ballot similar to ballot 121.

Mozilla votes No.

If these insurance requirements were clearly a relaxation and a
simplification, we might have voted Yes, on the grounds that it's a step
towards eliminating them. But I have sufficient doubt that they actually
are a relaxation and simplification.

What they certainly are is a change, and one key point is that all EV
issuing CAs will, by definition, already have insurance meeting the
current requirements. Setting a different requirement would require them
to go to the effort of negotiating and obtaining different insurance -
and then, in the future, if we remove the requirement entirely, that
would be wasted effort and money.

We also would (now) support a ballot similar to ballot 121.

Gerv