[cabfpub] Alternative path forward for Names

[Gervase Markham]

On 06/03/17 03:20, Peter Bowen via Public wrote:
> This would allow CAs with other naming policies to be BR compliant as
> long as they don’t assert 2.23.140.1.2.2 or 2.23.140.1.2.3 in their
> certificates.

As noted by you, it seems that the point of the BR rules is to make sure
companies are identifiable and contactable. If this can be done reliably
with less information in some jurisdictions, surely we should update the
BRs to permit this?

Gerv