[cabfpub] Ballot 174 - Reform of Requirements Relating to Conflicts with Local Law

[Ryan Sleevi]

Google votes YES

On Mon, Aug 15, 2016 at 2:03 AM, Gervase Markham <gerv at mozilla.org> wrote:

> *Ballot 174 - Reform of Requirements Relating to Conflicts with Local Law *
>
> The following motion has been proposed by Gervase Markham of Mozilla and
> endorsed by Kirk Hall of Entrust and Moudrick Dadashov of SSC:
>
> *Statement of Intent:* The purpose of this change is to reform section
> 9.16.3 of the BRs, titled "Severability", which deals with what a CA must
> do when it encounters a conflict between the requirements of a jurisdiction
> under which it operates and the requirements of the BRs. At the moment,
> this clause is triggered only by a court determination rather than by the
> CA encountering a conflict, which makes it unlikely to ever be triggered,
> and it requires notification to the CAB Forum but not documentation of the
> outcome. The current clause is:
>
> 9.16.3. Severability
>
> If a court or government body with jurisdiction over the activities
> covered by these Requirements determines that the performance of any
> mandatory requirement is illegal, then such requirement is considered
> reformed to the minimum extent necessary to make the requirement valid and
> legal. This applies only to operations or certificate issuances that are
> subject to the laws of that jurisdiction.  The parties involved SHALL
> notify the CA / Browser Forum of the facts, circumstances, and law(s)
> involved, so that the CA/Browser Forum may revise these Requirements
> accordingly.
>
>
> *--Motion Begins-- *
>
>
> Delete section 9.16.3 from the Baseline Requirements in its entirety and
> replace it with the following:
>
> 9.16.3. Severability
>
> In the event of a conflict between these Requirements and a law,
> regulation or government order (hereinafter 'Law') of any jurisdiction in
> which a CA operates or issues certificates, a CA MAY modify any conflicting
> requirement to the minimum extent necessary to make the requirement valid
> and legal in the jurisdiction. This applies only to operations or
> certificate issuances that are subject to that Law. In such event, the CA
> SHALL immediately (and prior to issuing a certificate under the modified
> requirement) include in Section 9.16.3 of the CA’s CPS a detailed reference
> to the Law requiring a modification of these Requirements under this
> section, and the specific modification to these Requirements implemented by
> the CA.
>
> The CA MUST also (prior to issuing a certificate under the modified
> requirements) notify the CA/Browser Forum of the relevant information newly
> added to its CPS by sending a message to questions at cabforum.org and
> receiving confirmation that it has been posted to the Public Mailing List
> and is indexed in the Public Mail Archives available at
> https://cabforum.org/pipermail/public/ (or such other email addresses and
> links as the Forum may designate), so that the CA/Browser Forum may
> consider possible revisions to these Requirements accordingly.
>
> Any modification to CA practice enabled under this section MUST be
> discontinued if and when the Law no longer applies, or these Requirements
> are modified to make it possible to comply with both them and the Law
> simultaneously. An appropriate change in practice, modification to the CA’s
> CPS and a notice to the CA/Browser Forum, as outlined above, MUST be made
> within 90 days.
>
> CAs are required to make this change to their processes by a date 90 days
> from the date this ballot passes.
>
>
>
> *--Motion Ends-- *
>
>
> The review period for this ballot shall commence immediately and close at
> 2200 UTC on Monday 22nd August. Unless the motion is withdrawn during the
> review period, the voting period will start immediately thereafter and will
> close at 2200 UTC on Monday 29th August. 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
> ten (10) members – at least ten members must participate in the ballot,
> either by voting in favor, voting against, or abstaining.
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Public mailing list
> 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/20160823/38de272f/attachment-0003.html>