[cabfpub] Ballot 190: Domain Validation

[Ryan Sleevi]

On Thu, Apr 13, 2017 at 5:07 PM, Kirk Hall <Kirk.Hall at entrustdatacard.com>
wrote:

> Can you explain what part of Ballot 190 (shown below) is not clear to
> you?  Do you have edits you would suggest that would “fix” the problem you
> see?
>
>
>
> *Ballot Section 1* [Readopts various domain validation methods of BR
> 3.2.2.4]
>
>
>
> *Ballot Section 2*
>
>
>
> The provisions of Ballot Section 1 will apply only to the validation of
> domain names occurring after this Ballot 190’s effective date.  Validation
> of domain names that occurs before this Ballot’s effective date and the
> resulting validation data may continue to be used for the periods specified
> in BR 4.2.1 and EVGL 11.14.3 so long as the validations were conducted in
> compliance with the BR Section 3.2.2.4 validation methods in effect at the
> time of each validation.
>

Sure. I download the BRs. Where do I find out about Section 2?
I'm an auditor. I'm examining the BRs. Where do I find out about Section 2?

Section 2 needs to be in the BRs.


>
>
> While the BRs may not be a legal document the same as a state or federal
> statute, it makes sense that we would follow the same procedures in their
> adoption and codification that are used by legislatures (county
> commissions, city halls, etc.) around the world.
>

Kirk, we discussed this at the Forum, and agreed that was an inappropriate
conclusion via consensus. This was during the talk about the role and
nature of the Forum, and there was broad consensus these were technical
documents, developed using technical document procedures.

We don't slip in hidden clauses outside that requires exceptional
knowledge. They go in the documents.


> Your interpretation is your own, but it’s not binding on the Forum, and
> it’s not correct.
>

Nothing is ever binding on the Forum. It's binding on the root store side,
and I'm more than happy to reject any audits that don't include this
interpretation. Let's avoid that and try to reach consensus by actually
codifying in the documents that are produced.

This is not the first time you've suggested these documents (and our
bylaws) are subject to interpretation. The only thing subject to contract
law is our IP policy. Everything else _has_ an interpretation, and it's not
defined by you.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.cabforum.org/pipermail/public/attachments/20170413/0a1da0b3/attachment-0003.html>