[cabfpub] EV 11.4.1 Business Address Verification

[Scott Rea]

On 9/4/2017 3:08 PM, Gervase Markham wrote:
> On 04/09/17 10:42, Scott Rea wrote:
>> We could, proving they have a physical location is not the issue, it's
>> having done that, providing an accurate, consistent, repeatable
>> description of what that address is - is the challenge. The PO Box
>> becomes that after verification, but EVG says we can't use use PO Boxes
>> even tho in this case, it may have just become the best consistent
>> description that we can use...
> 
> I think we need to go back to first principles. Why is this requirement
> there? It's there to prove that this company actually really exists as a
> physical thing. I don't think it's there so you can go visit it; the use
> of that address is probably to serve legal papers there.
> 
> So, I repeat my question: can you serve legal papers on the PO Box and
> have them be validly served?

Yes - legal papers can be validly served on PO Box (at least that is
what local legal counsel informed me)
> 
> The thing is, if we accept the PO Box, we are replacing the EVG's
> standards for validating business physical existence with the standards
> of the Post Offices of various Middle Eastern countries. And those
> standards might vary, and not necessarily be as rigorous. (How does the
> Post Office lose out if you manage to get a PO Box without actually
> having a local business?)

We still validate business physical existence, the issue is that
documentation of what it is described as, ties back to a moniker which
is specifically restricted in the EVG.

So I can go to the address, I can verify that the company exists, but
when I describe where that is - all official documentation is using a PO
Box to describe it, which is something that EVG says no can do. I myself
can say that its XYZ descriptor  - but that is not what is on the
official documentation, the PO Box is.

Do you see the challenge I am trying to illuminate?

> 
> Gerv
> 

-- 
Scott Rea, MSc, CISSP
Ph# (801) 874-4114