[cabfpub] Ballot 169 status

[Kirk Hall]

Doug, I have a slightly different opinion about where we are.  Remember that the Forum can't impose rules on anyone.  The rules come from browser root programs, and we are checked for compliance by our periodic WebTrust/ETSI audits.

There is already a current set of BRs and EVGL out there (even if we need to go through certain steps to have them readopted in exact compliance with our IPR policy), and I believe the browsers through their own root programs expect us to comply with those guidelines for now (and our auditors will probably audit us using their own WebTrust / ETSI audit standards - which they adopted, not the Forum).  So my feeling is that my own CA should continue to operate as before, and in order to meet browser and WebTrust requirements we should follow the current BRs and EVGL.

Also, I expect that after we go through a re-adoption process following the exact steps of our IPR policy, the effective date for the new domain validation methods of BR 3.2.2.4 will be the same.  The point of re-adopting the BRs and EVGL is so we all get the benefits and protections of our IPR policy, but there's no real reason not to follow the current BRs and EVGL in the meantime.

From: public-bounces at cabforum.org [mailto:public-bounces at cabforum.org] On Behalf Of Doug Beattie
Sent: Thursday, September 15, 2016 12:11 PM
To: CABFPub <public at cabforum.org>
Subject: [cabfpub] Ballot 169 status

As I understand it from the call today, Ballot 169 has effectively been rejected as a valid ballot and therefor the dates for compliance (March 1, 2017) no longer exist as milestones.  Dean and Kirk are going to propose a process for reviewing the IPR Exclusion notices and define next steps.

Will there be an updated BR soon with the changes reversed?


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: https://cabforum.org/pipermail/public/attachments/20160915/88c4b4dd/attachment.html