[cabfpub] Ballot 89 Rewrite

[Ryan Sleevi]

Ben,

The downside to this approach is that voting for either Part A or Part
B presumably serves towards quorum, much in the same way an explicit
abstention would (as opposed to a non-voting party).

I'm not trying to mire things in procedural nits, but as has been seen
in the past, I'm particularly nervous when it comes to setting
precedents in harmless/benign situations that might be used to justify
more problematic practices in the future.

Cheers,
Ryan

On Tue, Aug 13, 2013 at 4:02 PM, Ben Wilson <ben at digicert.com> wrote:
> Here is some alternative ballot language:
>
> --- Motion begins ---
>
> Ballot 89 Part A - Be it resolved that we remove the 2009 Version 1.0 of
> "GUIDELINES for the PROCESSING of EXTENDED VALIDATION CERTIFICATES" from the
> public CA Browser Forum website."
>
> Yes / No
>
> Ballot 89 Part B - Be it further resolved that we post the attached
> "RECOMMENDATIONS for the PROCESSING of EXTENDED VALIDATION CERTIFICATES" to
> the public CA Browser Forum website.
>
> Yes / No
>
>
> ... Motion ends ...
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: public-bounces at cabforum.org [mailto:public-bounces at cabforum.org] On
> Behalf Of Ben Wilson
> Sent: Tuesday, August 13, 2013 4:58 PM
> To: 'Ryan Sleevi'; 'Rick Andrews'
> Cc: public at cabforum.org
> Subject: Re: [cabfpub] Ballot 89 Rewrite
>
> It was my idea to combine the vote.  We can split the language to express
> two yes/no decisions.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: public-bounces at cabforum.org [mailto:public-bounces at cabforum.org] On
> Behalf Of Ryan Sleevi
> Sent: Tuesday, August 13, 2013 4:44 PM
> To: Rick Andrews
> Cc: public at cabforum.org
> Subject: Re: [cabfpub] Ballot 89 Rewrite
>
> Rick,
>
> It appears you're actually proposing two ballots here. While I appreciate
> the desire for efficiency, it does seem against the spirit of the forum
> where a vote for "No" is in fact a vote "Yes", simply for a different
> motion. Abstaining is possible, but equally seems counter to the purpose of
> abstentions.
>
> It does appear that, like so many other work products of the CA/B Forum, our
> bylaws are ambiguous with respect to the expected form of motions. The
> closest interpretation would be Section 2.2 (e) of the bylaws, which
> suggestions all Ballot Questions shall be Yes/No - indicating a ballot
> question is needed here.
>
> Rather than positioning your latest proposal as "all or nothing", perhaps it
> would be more prudent to first discuss whether or not the membership agrees
> to withdraw the present guidelines. It would seem that if such a vote
> passed, it would give a clear signal whether there was sufficient and strong
> enough interest for updating it.
>
> Regards,
> Ryan
>
> On Tue, Aug 13, 2013 at 3:22 PM, Rick Andrews <Rick_Andrews at symantec.com>
> wrote:
>> I am withdrawing the current Ballot 89 language and replacing it as
>> outlined below.  A while back, I volunteered to update the Guidance to
>> Application Developers (version 1, dated 2009, at
>>
> https://www.cabforum.org/Guidelines_for_the_processing_of_EV_certificates%20
> v1_0.pdf).
>> Based on comments received, edits were made to both the guideline
>> document and the ballot.  However, more recently I began to understand
>> that none of the browser vendors were supportive of my changes.  Of
>> particular note, I received objections to some provisions in version
>> 2, but then I saw that the same language currently exists in the 2009
>> version on the CABF website (i.e., that a browser should drop EV
>> treatment for certificates that don't meet crypto requirements
>> (Section 10) and that browsers should adjust their Root Embedding
>> Programs accordingly (Section 7)).  So my conclusion is that browser
>> vendors might not be supportive of version 1 either.  However, as a
>> final
> effort, I have edited the document again and renamed it to:
>> "Recommendations for the Processing of EV SSL Certificates."  You can
>> view changes from version 1 in the attached documents.
>>
>> Therefore, I am proposing that Ballot 89 go forward as follows, if I
>> can get two endorsers:
>>
>> Ballot 93 - Reasons for Revocation (BR issues 6, 8, 10, 21)
>>
>> Rick Andrews (Symantec) made the following motion, endorsed by ? and ?:
>>
>> --- Motion begins ---
>>
>> A "YES" vote on Ballot 89 means that the member votes to remove the
>> 2009 Version 1.0 of "GUIDELINES for the PROCESSING of EXTENDED
>> VALIDATION CERTIFICATES" from the public CA Browser Forum website and
>> replace it with the attached "RECOMMENDATIONS for the PROCESSING of
>> EXTENDED VALIDATION CERTIFICATES".
>>
>> A "NO" vote on the ballot means that the member votes to remove the
>> 2009 Version 1.0 of "GUIDELINES for the PROCESSING of EXTENDED
>> VALIDATION CERTIFICATES" on the public CA Browser Forum website and
>> not
> replace it.
>>
>> ... Motion ends ...
>>
>> -Rick
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Public mailing list
>> Public at cabforum.org
>> https://cabforum.org/mailman/listinfo/public
>>
> _______________________________________________
> Public mailing list
> Public at cabforum.org
> https://cabforum.org/mailman/listinfo/public
>
> _______________________________________________
> Public mailing list
> Public at cabforum.org
> https://cabforum.org/mailman/listinfo/public
>