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

Mon Aug 29 05:45:12 UTC 2016

SSC votes: "Yes".

Thanks,
M.D.

On 8/15/2016 12:03 PM, Gervase Markham 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/20160829/b546cd05/attachment-0003.html>