[cabfpub] Voting has started on Ballot 192 - Notary revision

[Rich Smith]

Comodo votes Yes.

 

From: Public [mailto:public-bounces at cabforum.org] On Behalf Of Kirk Hall via
Public
Sent: Sunday, June 25, 2017 4:53 PM
To: CA/Browser Forum Public Discussion List <public at cabforum.org>
Subject: [cabfpub] Voting has started on Ballot 192 - Notary revision

 

Voting ends the Wednesday, June 28 at 22:00 UTC

 

From: Public [mailto:public-bounces at cabforum.org] On Behalf Of Jeremy Rowley
via Public
Sent: Wednesday, June 14, 2017 10:01 AM
To: CA/Browser Forum Public Discussion List <public at cabforum.org
<mailto:public at cabforum.org> >
Cc: Jeremy Rowley <jeremy.rowley at digicert.com
<mailto:jeremy.rowley at digicert.com> >
Subject: [EXTERNAL][cabfpub] Ballot 192 - Notary revision

 

>From the validation WG:

 

Ballot 192 - Notary Revisions

The following motion has been proposed by Jeremy Rowley of DigiCert and
endorsed by Kirk Hall of Entrust and Rich Smith of Comodo.

Currently, section 11.11.1(A)(ii) states,

 

11.11.1.               Verified Legal Opinion  

(1)          Verification Requirements:  Before relying on a legal opinion
submitted to the CA, the CA MUST verify that such legal opinion meets the
following requirements:

(A)          Status of Author:  The CA MUST verify that the legal opinion is
authored by an independent legal practitioner retained by and representing
the Applicant (or an in-house legal practitioner employed by the Applicant)
(Legal Practitioner) who is either:

.

(ii)  A notary that is a member of the International Union of Latin
Notaries, and is licensed to practice in the country of the Applicant's
Jurisdiction of Incorporation or Registration or any jurisdiction where the
Applicant maintains an office or physical facility (and that such
jurisdiction recognizes the role of the Latin Notary);

 

The EV Guidelines already define "Latin Notary" appropriately and
sufficiently as "A person with legal training whose commission under
applicable law not only includes authority to authenticate the execution of
a signature on a document but also responsibility for the correctness and
content of the document. A Latin Notary is sometimes referred to as a Civil
Law Notary."

 

Whether a Latin Notary (or Civil Law Notary) is a member of the IULN should
not be dispositive as to whether the person is competent and qualified to
provide a legal opinion.  The current wording of section 11.11.1(A)(ii)
means we cannot accept letters from proper Latin Notaries (individuals) who
aren't members of the IULN. 

 

By deleting the requirement that a Latin Notary be a member of the
International Union of Latin Notaries, this ballot permits a more extensive
view on who can provide the type of legal opinion required by the EV
Guidelines.

 

--MOTION BEGINS--

 

  A. Effective immediately, modify 11.11.1(A) as follows:

 

'''11.11.1. Verified Legal Opinion'''

 

(1) '''Verification Requirements''': Before relying on a legal opinion
submitted to the CA, the CA MUST verify that such legal opinion meets the
following requirements:

 

(A) '''Status of Author''': The CA MUST verify that the legal opinion is
authored by an independent legal practitioner retained by and representing
the Applicant (or an in-house legal practitioner employed by the Applicant)
(Legal Practitioner) who is either: 

 

(i) A lawyer (or solicitor, barrister, advocate, or equivalent) licensed to
practice law in the country of the Applicant's Jurisdiction of Incorporation
or Registration or any jurisdiction where the Applicant maintains an office
or physical facility, or

 

(ii) A notary that is a member of the International Union of Latin Notaries,
and is Latin Notary who is currently commissioned or licensed to practice in
the country of the Applicant's Jurisdiction of Incorporation or Registration
or any jurisdiction where the Applicant maintains an office or physical
facility (and that jurisdiction recognizes the role of the Latin Notary);

 

--MOTION ENDS-

 

The procedure for approval of this ballot is as follows: 


BALLOT 192 

Start time (22:00 UTC) 

End time (22:00 UTC) 


Discussion (7 to 14 days) 

15th June

21st June


Vote for approval (7 days) 

21st June    

28th June

			

Votes must be cast by posting an on-list reply to this thread on the Public
list. A vote in favor of the motion must indicate a clear 'yes' in the
response. A vote against must indicate a clear 'no' in the response. A vote
to abstain must indicate a clear 'abstain' in the response. Unclear
responses will not be counted. The latest vote received from any
representative of a voting member before the close of the voting period will
be counted. Voting members are listed here: https://cabforum.org/members/ 

In order for the motion to be adopted, two thirds or more of the votes cast
by members in the CA category and greater than 50% of the votes cast by
members in the browser category must be in favor. Quorum is shown on
CA/Browser Forum wiki. Under Bylaw 2.2(g), at least the required quorum
number must participate in the ballot for the ballot to be valid, either by
voting in favor, voting against, or abstaining. 

 

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.cabforum.org/pipermail/public/attachments/20170627/36c33fc0/attachment-0003.html>