[cabfpub] Ballot 143 - Formalization of Validation Working Group

[Rijt, R.A. van de (Robert) - Logius]

Logius PKIoverheid votes yes.

Regards,
Robert

From: public-bounces at cabforum.org<mailto:public-bounces at cabforum.org> [mailto:public-bounces at cabforum.org] On Behalf Of Jeremy Rowley
Sent: Wednesday, February 4, 2015 4:05 PM
To: CABFPub
Subject: [cabfpub] Ballot 143 - Formalization of Validation Working Group

Ballot 143 - Formalization of validation working group

----
Reason
----

In order to address validation issues and inconsistencies in both the SSL Baseline Requirements and the EV Guidelines, the CAB Forum has held an informal working group previously referred to as the Extended Validation Working Group now known as the Validation Working Group, would like to modify its scope to include validation in the Baseline Requirements as well as the EV Guidelines.

Jeremy Rowley of DigiCert made the following motion, which was endorsed by Rich Smith of Comodo and Kirk Hall of TrendMicro

----
Motion begins
----

The CA-Browser Forum formally establishes the Validation Working Group as an official working group of the CAB Forum, replacing the previous informal EV working group.  The scope of this working group is to address issues arising under adopted CAB Forum standards related to the validation of certificate information and the inclusion of information in certificates.

Scope: The Validation Working Group will consider all matters relating to the validation and inclusion of information in certificates under adopted CAB Forum guidelines.

Deliverables: The Working Group shall produce one or more documents offering options to the Forum for validation within the scope defined above.

----
Motion Ends
----

The review period for this ballot shall commence at 2200 UTC on 5 Feb 2015, and will close at 2200 UTC on 11 Feb 2015. Unless the motion is withdrawn during the review period, the voting period will start immediately thereafter and will close at 2200 UTC on 18 Feb 2015. 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/

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. Quorum is currently nine (9) members- at least nine members must participate in the ballot, either by voting in favor, voting against, or abstaining.

________________________________

Dit bericht kan informatie bevatten die niet voor u is bestemd. Indien u niet de geadresseerde bent of dit bericht abusievelijk aan u is toegezonden, wordt u verzocht dat aan de afzender te melden en het bericht te verwijderen. De Staat aanvaardt geen aansprakelijkheid voor schade, van welke aard ook, die verband houdt met risico's verbonden aan het elektronisch verzenden van berichten.
This message may contain information that is not intended for you. If you are not the addressee or if this message was sent to you by mistake, you are requested to inform the sender and delete the message. The State accepts no liability for damage of any kind resulting from the risks inherent in the electronic transmission of messages. .
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.cabforum.org/pipermail/public/attachments/20150217/d2abea35/attachment-0003.html>