[cabfpub] Ballot 169 Results

[Dean Coclin]

I don’t think so. I’m working with Ben on the “catch up” exclusion notice for the previous ones and we haven’t concluded as to whether or not we can just make these ballot announcements equal to the exclusion notices. Perhaps we should discuss on the next call?

 

From: Ryan Sleevi [mailto:sleevi at google.com] 
Sent: Sunday, August 07, 2016 2:50 PM
To: Dean Coclin <Dean_Coclin at symantec.com>
Cc: CABFPub <public at cabforum.org>
Subject: Re: [cabfpub] Ballot 169 Results

 

Does this represent the formal call for exclusions?

 

On Aug 7, 2016 11:48 AM, "Dean Coclin" <Dean_Coclin at symantec.com <mailto:Dean_Coclin at symantec.com> > wrote:

Voting on Ballot 169, Revised Validation Requirements, has ended. Here are the results:

 

>From the CAs, we received 19 YES votes, 0 NO votes and 0 Abstentions

 

>From the Browsers, we received 3 YES votes, 0 NO votes and 0 Abstentions

 

Therefore, the ballot passes unanimously.

 

A big thank you to the validation working group for all your efforts in working through the issues and developing a ballot which met everyone’s expectations. The results are indicative of the time you took to address comments from the group.

 

This ballot has an effective date of March 1, 2017.

 

 

 

Dean Coclin

CA/B Forum Chair

 

 


_______________________________________________
Public mailing list
Public at cabforum.org <mailto: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/20160807/05eaf02a/attachment-0003.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/pkcs7-signature
Size: 5723 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.cabforum.org/pipermail/public/attachments/20160807/05eaf02a/attachment-0001.p7s>