[cabfpub] Ballot 169 Results

[Peter Bowen]

Dean,

I realize we need to resolve the review period issue for prior ballots.  However that should not cause it to be an issue for this (and future ballots).

As the CAB Forum Chair, would you please initiate the Review Period for this ballot 169 by distributing a Review Notice?

Thanks,
Peter

> On Aug 7, 2016, at 2:18 PM, Dean Coclin <Dean_Coclin at symantec.com> wrote:
> 
> 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> 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
> https://cabforum.org/mailman/listinfo/public
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Public mailing list
> Public at cabforum.org
> https://cabforum.org/mailman/listinfo/public