[cabfpub] Ballot 96 - Wildcard Certificates and New gTLDs

Tue Feb 19 21:23:12 UTC 2013

Hi,

SSC votes: "Abstain".

Thanks,
M.D.

On 2/5/2013 11:39 PM, Jeremy Rowley wrote:
>
> Hi everyone,
>
> This is the formal ballot on wildcards and gTLDs.  This ballot will 
> require the uniform use of wildcard characters in certificates and 
> initiate an early phase-out of gTLDs approved by ICANN.  Once passed, 
> CAs will need to stop issuing certificates with the new gTLDs and 
> revoke them 120 days after ICANN has signed an agreement with the gTLD 
> operator.  If the ballot is approved, the [www.icann.org] references 
> in the ballot will be replaced with a link provided by ICANN that all 
> CAs can use to check for approved gTLDs.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Jeremy
>
> Jeremy Rowley made the following motion, and Rick Andrews and Steve 
> Roylance endorsed it:
>
> ... Motion Begins ...
>
> ... Erratum Begins ...
>
> Add the following as new Section 11.1.3:
>
> 11.1    Authorization by Domain Name Registrant
>
> 11.1.3 Wildcard Domain Validation
>
> Before issuing a certificate with a wildcard character (*) in a CN or 
> subjectAltName of type DNS-ID, the CA MUST establish and follow a 
> documented procedure+ that determines if the wildcard character occurs 
> in the first label position to the left of a "registry-controlled" 
> label or "public suffix" (e.g. "*.com", "*.co.uk", see RFC 6454 
> Section 8.2 for further explanation).
>
> If a wildcard would fall within the label immediately to the left of a 
> registry-controlled+ or public suffix, CAs MUST refuse issuance unless 
> the applicant proves its rightful control of the entire Domain 
> Namespace. (e.g. CAs MUST NOT issue "*.co.uk" or "*.local", but MAY 
> issue "*.example.com" to Example Co.).
>
> Prior to September 1, 2013, each CA MUST revoke any valid certificate 
> that does not comply with this section of the Requirements.
>
> +Determination of what is "registry-controlled" versus  the 
> registerable portion of a Country Code Top-Level Domain Namespace is 
> not standardized at the time of writing and is not a property of the 
> DNS itself. Current best practice is to consult a "public suffix list" 
> such as http://publicsuffix.org/.  If the process for making this 
> determination is standardized by an RFC, then such a procedure SHOULD 
> be preferred.
>
> Add the following as new Section 11.1.4:
>
> 11.1.4 New gTLD Domains
>
> CAs SHOULD NOT issue Certificates containing a new gTLD under 
> consideration by ICANN. Prior to issuing a Certificate containing an 
> Internal Server Name with a gTLD that ICANN has announced as under 
> consideration to make operational, the CA MUST provide a warning to 
> the applicant that the gTLD may soon become resolvable and that, at 
> that time, the CA will revoke the Certificate unless the applicant 
> promptly registers the domain name.
>
> Within 30 days after ICANN has approved a new gTLD for operation, as 
> evidenced by  publication of a contract with the gTLD operator on 
> [www.icann.org] each CA MUST (1) compare the new gTLD against the CA's 
> records of valid certificates and (2) cease issuing Certificates 
> containing a Domain Name that includes the new gTLD until after the CA 
> has first verified the Subscriber's control over or exclusive right to 
> use the Domain Name  in accordance with Section 11.1.
>
> Within 120 days after the publication of a contract for a new gTLD is 
> published on [www.icann.org], CAs MUST revoke each Certificate 
> containing a Domain Name that includes the new gTLD unless the 
> Subscriber is either the Domain Name Registrant or can demonstrate 
> control over the Domain Name.
>
> ... Erratum Ends ...
>
> The review period for this ballot shall commence at 21:00 UTC on 6 
> February 2013 and will close at 21:00 UTC on 13 February 2013. Unless 
> the motion is withdrawn during the review period, the voting period 
> will start immediately thereafter and will close at 21:00 UTC on 20 
> February 2013. Votes must be cast by posting an on-list reply to this 
> thread.
>
> ... Motions ends ...
>
> 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: http://www.cabforum.org/forum.html
>
> In order for the motion to be adopted, two thirds or more of the votes 
> cast by members in the CA category and one half or more of the votes 
> cast by members in the browser category must be in favor. Also, at 
> least seven members must participate in the ballot, either by voting 
> in favor, voting against or abstaining.
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Public mailing list
> Public at cabforum.org
> https://cabforum.org/mailman/listinfo/public

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.cabforum.org/pipermail/public/attachments/20130219/7023842f/attachment-0003.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/pkcs7-signature
Size: 2457 bytes
Desc: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
URL: <http://lists.cabforum.org/pipermail/public/attachments/20130219/7023842f/attachment-0001.p7s>