[cabfpub] Ballot 89 Rewrite

Wed Aug 14 03:26:28 UTC 2013

That's fine.  Ballot 89 could just be "Part B," which is basically similar
to Ballot 89, if that helps get us past the basic form of a ballot so we can
look at the substance.  Also, I'm not sure whether this helps, but attached
is a PDF version in which I cleaned up a couple of typos and added line
numbering.  

-----Original Message-----
From: Ryan Sleevi [mailto:sleevi at google.com] 
Sent: Tuesday, August 13, 2013 5:08 PM
To: ben at digicert.com
Cc: Rick Andrews; CABFPub
Subject: Re: [cabfpub] Ballot 89 Rewrite

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_certifica
> tes%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
>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: Recommendations-for-the-processing-of-EV-SSL-certificates.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 58019 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.cabforum.org/pipermail/public/attachments/20130813/6bdc84d9/attachment-0003.pdf>