[cabfpub] Limitation of Liability and Indemnification
Moudrick M. Dadashov
md at ssc.lt
Thu Oct 12 21:55:36 UTC 2017
Thank you, Virginia.
I assumed binding works like this:
BR/EVG --> Webtrust/ETSI audit schemes --> Audit report --> CP/CPS -->
Binding RPA/Subscriber Agreement
On 10/13/2017 12:38 AM, Virginia Fournier via Public wrote:
> Message: 3
> Date: Fri, 13 Oct 2017 00:18:33 +0300
> From: "Moudrick M. Dadashov" <md at ssc.lt <mailto:md at ssc.lt>>
> To: Virginia Fournier via Public <public at cabforum.org
> <mailto:public at cabforum.org>>
> Subject: Re: [cabfpub] Limitation of Liability and Indemnification
> Message-ID: <3b9e4544-5b18-7535-c712-1cf544d7d8c5 at ssc.lt
> <mailto:3b9e4544-5b18-7535-c712-1cf544d7d8c5 at ssc.lt>>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; Format="flowed"
> Could you please explain why you think BR and EV Requirements are only
> binding on members of the Forum?
> Hi M.D.
> I can see why this would be hard to understand.
> Entities who are not members of the Forum have nothing that would
> legally bind them to abide by those limitations. They aren’t members,
> so they aren’t bound by any of the Forum documents - Bylaws, Baseline
> Requirements, etc. They don’t have a written agreement with the Forum
> to abide by certain requirements, so they’re not bound that way either.
> The best way to make the limitations binding on the Subscribers,
> Relying Parties, etc. would be for the CAs to enter into agreements
> with those parties, and try to get them to agree to the limitations.
> But, again, they could just ignore the limitations.
> As an example, let’s say you and I make an agreement that you will
> sell a car to my friend Bob for $5,000. We sign the agreement and
> you’re ready to deliver the car to Bob. You get to Bob’s house, and
> he wants the car for $2,000. You say that you agreed with me to sell
> it for $5,000. Bob says tough turnips, he wasn’t part of that
> agreement, it’s his money, and he won’t pay more than $2,000. You
> would have no choice but to sell Bob the car for $2,000 or find a new
> buyer. The agreement that you and I made for $5,000 isn’t binding on
> Bob, because he wasn’t part of the agreement. Does that make sense?
> On 10/13/2017 12:08 AM, Virginia Fournier via Public wrote:
>> Hi all,
>> I want to weigh in on this from a legal perspective.
>> The limitations on liabilities and indemnification provisions
>> included in the Baseline Requirements and the EV Requirements are
>> only binding on members of the Forum. In other words, these
>> limitations are not binding on parties such as Subscribers and
>> Relying Parties, and they do not have to accept the stated amounts.
>> So, CAs can try to obtain the limitations you?ve enumerated below,
>> but they do not have to be accepted. For example, a Subscriber could
>> demand a unlimited liability, and the CA would have to decide how to
>> Also, what is ?legally recognizable and provable claims? intended to
>> cover, or exclude?
>> Best regards,
>> Virginia Fournier
>> Senior Standards Counsel
>> ? Apple Inc.
>> ? 669-227-9595
>> ?? vmf at apple.com <mailto:vmf at apple.com>
> Best regards,
> Virginia Fournier
> Senior Standards Counsel
> Apple Inc.
> ☏ 669-227-9595
> ✉︎ vmf at apple.com <mailto:vmf at apple.com>
> Public mailing list
> Public at cabforum.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Public