[cabfpub] Reform of section 9.16.3

[Gervase Markham]

On 20/07/16 01:17, Kirk Hall wrote:
> If instead what you are after is a requirement that CAs report to the
> Forum all _conflicts_ (including but not limited to local law that makes
> compliance with a BR “illegal”) between local law and a mandatory BR
> requirement, then describe what the CA is doing about the conflict and
> propose possible modifications to the BR in question to resolve the
> conflict, that would be easy to draft.  And the CA could also be
> required to include a description of the conflict and how the CA is
> responding (generally by following local law, I predict) in its CPS at
> Sec. 9.16.3 - that also would be easy to draft, and probably useful.

I follow your argument, and it makes sense to me. Yes, I think this is
what we want. If the CA does not follow, or "modifies", a section of the
BRs in order to comply with local law, they should explain what they
have done, and how they are trying to meet the spirit of that BR
requirement as much as possible. Invoking courts or local authorities
does indeed make little sense, as they are not going to specifically
rule on bits of the BRs.

> What would you think of this alternate approach to amending BR 9.16.3?

I'd be very pleased if you were to draft something, and then we could
throw it into the discussion.

Gerv