[cabfpub] Ballot 223 - Update BR Section 8.4 for CA audit criteria: Request to postpone it

Mon Apr 23 14:53:12 UTC 2018

There’s no need to postpone the discussion phase, as the discussion phase can last for as long as is necessary to get the ballot to where we want it to be.  That’s why it’s listed as 7+ days.  The end time should be listed as “not before 30 April 2018” instead of “30 April 2018”, in line with what we did for other recent ballots.

Also, it is worth mentioning that this ballot came out of an oversight by the Governance Change Working Group, where we accidentally didn’t include Dimitris’ changes in the Governance Reform ballot, despite the fact that we said we were going to.  It would be a shame to hold up these improvements for a long time by tying them to other larger efforts.  I could be wrong, but “define more precise requirements on standards for conducting the audits” by referencing new standards sounds like something that could take a long while to get agreement on.

Fixing the definition of “national scheme” sounds much more doable, and suggesting a concrete proposal of how it could be done would help.

-Tim

From: Public [mailto:public-bounces at cabforum.org] On Behalf Of Arno Fiedler via Public
Sent: Monday, April 23, 2018 10:27 AM
To: public at cabforum.org
Cc: management-request at cabforum.org; ESI_TSP: (ESI Trust Service Providers) <ESI_TSP at LIST.ETSI.ORG>
Subject: Re: [cabfpub] Ballot 223 - Update BR Section 8.4 for CA audit criteria: Request to postpone it

Dear CA/B-Forum Members,

sorry for jumping in late, Dimitris and Moudrick, many thanks for the proposed ballot. 
After checking different Browser Requirements I strongly suggest to postpone the discussion phase ballot 223 on "Updating BR Section 8.4".

We should have further improvements on the definitions, 
esp. of  "national scheme" ( e. g. within EA or IAF Framework)  and 
define more precise requirements on standards for conducting the audits, (e. g. ISO/IEC 17065 supplemented by ETSI EN 319 403) 
so I suggest to postpone the start of the discussion phase on May, the 7th.

Would realy like to cover the audit requirements from all browsers by the Ballot, so more time is needed.

Thanks in advance and best regards

Arno Fiedler

Am 23.04.2018 um 07:18 schrieb Dimitris Zacharopoulos via Public:

The following motion has been proposed by Dimitris Zacharopoulos of HARICA and endorsed by Moudrick M. Dadashov of SSC and Tim Hollebeek from Digicert. 

Background: 

Section 8.4 of the Baseline Requirements describes the audit criteria for CAs that issue Publicly-Trusted SSL/TLS Certificates. This ballot attempts to achieve two things: 

1.	Remove the old ETSI TS documents 
2.	Align the WebTrust and ETSI requirements 

"WebTrust for Certification Authorities" is equivalent to "ETSI EN 319 401" and "WebTrust Principles and Criteria for Certification Authorities – SSL Baseline with Network Security" is equivalent to "ETSI EN 319 411-1". 

-- MOTION BEGINS -- 

Replace the first two numbered items in section 8.4 from: 

1.	WebTrust for Certification Authorities v2.0; 
2.	A national scheme that audits conformance to ETSI TS 102 042 / ETSI EN 319 411-1; or 

to: 

1.	"WebTrust for CAs v2.0 or newer" AND "WebTrust for CAs SSL Baseline with Network Security v2.2 or newer"; or  
2.	"ETSI EN 319 401 v2.1.1 or newer" AND "ETSI EN 319 411-1 v1.1.1"; or

-- MOTION ENDS -- 

The procedure for this ballot is as follows (exact start and end times may be adjusted to comply with applicable Bylaws and IPR Agreement): 

BALLOT 223 Status: Update BR Section 8.4 for CA audit criteria 

Start time (22:00 UTC) 

End time (22:00 UTC) 

Discussion (7+ days) 

23 April 2018 

30 April 2018 

Vote for approval (7 days) 

TBD  

TBD according to voting start time 

If vote approves ballot: Review Period (Chair to send Review Notice) (30 days)
If Exclusion Notice(s) filed, ballot approval is rescinded and PAG to be created.
If no Exclusion Notices filed, ballot becomes effective at end of Review Period.
Votes must be cast by posting an on-list reply to this thread on the Public Mail List. 

Upon filing of Review Notice by Chair 

30 days after filing of Review Notice by Chair 

>From the Bylaws section 2.4(a): "If the Draft Guideline Ballot is proposing a Final Maintenance Guideline, such ballot will include a redline or comparison showing the set of changes from the Final Guideline section(s) intended to become a Final Maintenance Guideline, and need not include a copy of the full set of guidelines. Such redline or comparison shall be made against the Final Guideline section(s) as they exist at the time a ballot is proposed, and need not take into consideration other ballots that may be proposed subsequently, except as provided in Section 2.4(j) below". 

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/ <https://nam02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fcabforum.org%2Fmembers%2F&data=02%7C01%7C%7Cd1ece9170b4c412118c308d5a8d9b97b%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C636600575423532305&sdata=%2BtkvNa%2FRWMg%2BMi3aHyR4HnvwLA%2FDp5yqBCe7twDbuUs%3D&reserved=0>  

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 the Bylaws section 2.3(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. 

_______________________________________________
Public mailing list
Public at cabforum.org <mailto:Public at cabforum.org> 
https://nam02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fcabforum.org%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fpublic <https://nam02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fcabforum.org%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fpublic&data=02%7C01%7C%7Cd1ece9170b4c412118c308d5a8d9b97b%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C636600575423532305&sdata=y2KaTimAOv%2FA%2FjMTaDpP1C9MPVG%2FPtTTxL9RPUE78pc%3D&reserved=0> &data=02%7C01%7C%7Cd1ece9170b4c412118c308d5a8d9b97b%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C636600575423532305&sdata=y2KaTimAOv%2FA%2FjMTaDpP1C9MPVG%2FPtTTxL9RPUE78pc%3D&reserved=0

-- 
Arno Fiedler
Nimbus Technologieberatung GmbH
Reichensteiner Weg 17
14195 Berlin
Mobil:      0049-(0)172-3053272
Fax:        0049-(0)30-89745-777
E-Mail:     arno.fiedler at nimbus-berlin.com <mailto:arno.fiedler at nimbus-berlin.com> 
Web:        www.nimbus-berlin.com
Geschäftsführer:  Arno Fiedler
USt-IdNr. :       DE 203 269 920
D-U-N-S® Nr.      50-730-8117
HandelsregisterNr:HRB 109409 B
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.cabforum.org/pipermail/public/attachments/20180423/fcc2b5df/attachment-0003.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/pkcs7-signature
Size: 4940 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.cabforum.org/pipermail/public/attachments/20180423/fcc2b5df/attachment-0003.p7s>