[cabfpub] Reform of section 9.16.3

[Moudrick M. Dadashov]

Gerv, no objection, agreed.

Thanks,
M.D.

On 7/22/2016 11:31 AM, Gervase Markham wrote:
> On 20/07/16 20:06, Moudrick M. Dadashov wrote:
>> Kirk, we support your proposal and maybe the first sentence of (1)
>> should be slightly modified (replaced "order" wit "act" and added "to"
>> before the trailing comma):
>>
>> "In the event of a conflict between these Requirements and the laws or
>> government act of any jurisdiction in which a CA operates or issues
>> certificates to, <...>".
> At least in the UK, a government Act has a special meaning - it's a
> certain common type of law, but not the only way a government can impose
> a requirement. Can we use a neutral word, like "requirement"?
>
> "In the event of a conflict between these Requirements and the
> requirements of any legal jurisdiction in which a CA operates or for
> which a CA issues certificates, ..."
>
> Gerv
>
> _______________________________________________
> Public mailing list
> Public at cabforum.org
> https://cabforum.org/mailman/listinfo/public