[cabfpub] Ballot 190: Domain Validation

[Ryan Sleevi]

On Thu, Apr 13, 2017 at 5:56 PM, Kirk Hall <Kirk.Hall at entrustdatacard.com>
wrote:

> While I still disagree with your personal interpretation – why can’t we do
> things the way other deliberative bodies do? – as I said before, I have no
> problem including “Notes” at the end of provisions that are not part of the
> BRs, but which inform readers of what the transition rules for a particular
> ballot are.  The notes can then be dropped once they are no longer
> relevant.
>

You're again inventing a new process that is inconsistent with how we've
handled every other ballot, and introduces unnecessary ambiguity.

I would hope Jeremy would see how inadvisible this suggestion is. To save
trouble - We would vote No against the process you've described. Would you
vote No if we handled it like every other ballot?


> So we can include Section 2 of Ballot 190 as a “Note” after BR 3.2.2.4,
> which is the section affected by the transition rule, then remove it once
> the transition period is over – everyone will see that in the compiled
> version of the updated BRs.  Sounds like a solution we can all live with.
>

Unfortunately, it seems you continue to misunderstand the concerns, and I'm
not sure I can sufficiently explain them to you. Jeremy tends to understand
these issues, so I'm sure he would have no problem addressing these
concerns in a way that meaningfully work.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.cabforum.org/pipermail/public/attachments/20170413/3e9d1d18/attachment-0003.html>