[cabfpub] C=GR, C=UK exceptions in BRs

[Ryan Sleevi]

Hi Kirk,

Could you highlight where I said that? It would be useful to understand
what caused your confusion, as that's not what I said.

On Fri, Mar 17, 2017 at 7:33 PM, Kirk Hall <Kirk.Hall at entrustdatacard.com>
wrote:

> So there is your answer, Dimitris – Ryan thinks you must petition ISO.
> Good luck with that.
>
>
>
> *From:* Ryan Sleevi [mailto:sleevi at google.com]
> *Sent:* Friday, March 17, 2017 4:06 PM
> *To:* Kirk Hall <Kirk.Hall at entrustdatacard.com>
> *Cc:* CA/Browser Forum Public Discussion List <public at cabforum.org>;
> Dimitris Zacharopoulos <jimmy at it.auth.gr>
> *Subject:* Re: [cabfpub] C=GR, C=UK exceptions in BRs
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Fri, Mar 17, 2017 at 6:55 PM, Kirk Hall <Kirk.Hall at entrustdatacard.com>
> wrote:
>
> Ryan makes a good point – where there is a conflict between local law or
> practice (or desired practice) and the BRs, the best first step is to amend
> the BRs to allow compliance with local law or practice (or desired
> practice).
>
>
>
> As I recall the country codes we are all stuck with were created in the
> 1960s for a purpose unrelated to SSL and digital certificates.  There must
> have been a good reason for representing the United Kingdom (England,
> Wales, Scotland (for now), and Northern Ireland) as “GB” when Northern
> Island (part of the UK) is not in Great Britain and UK is the more
> generally known acronym for the United Kingdom – but I can’t imagine what
> the good reason was.
>
>
>
> Instead of a ballot that presents a sweeping new structure for country
> names, or points to another new document, maybe we just create an Appendix
> to the BRs that allows different country codes for Greece and the United
> Kingdom (as an alternative).  We would endorse such a ballot.
>
>
>
> Can you explain why?
>
>
>
> That is - Why you would endorse such a ballot? Why you believe the Forum
> should change?
>
>
>
> I appreciate that you highlighted your unfamiliarity with the history of
> why these country codes exist, or what their values should be, as this
> serves as a useful reminder to highlight the notion of Chesterton's Fence,
> named after the poet-philosopher G.K. Chesterton.
>
>
>
> While you can find many resources on this topic, perhaps it's worthwhile
> to quote the Wikipedia entry on him
> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G._K._Chesterton> that explains this
> concept:
>
>
>
> Chesterton's fence is the principle that reforms should not be made until
> the reasoning behind the existing state of affairs is understood. The
> quotation is from Chesterton’s 1929 book The Thing: Why I am a Catholic, in
> the chapter entitled "The Drift from Domesticity": "In the matter of
> reforming things, as distinct from deforming them, there is one plain and
> simple principle; a principle which will probably be called a paradox.
> There exists in such a case a certain institution or law; let us say, for
> the sake of simplicity, a fence or gate erected across a road. The more
> modern type of reformer goes gaily up to it and says, “I don’t see the use
> of this; let us clear it away." To which the more intelligent type of
> reformer will do well to answer: "If you don’t see the use of it, I
> certainly won’t let you clear it away. Go away and think. Then, when you
> can come back and tell me that you do see the use of it, I may allow you to
> destroy it."
>
>
>
> I think that we would be opposed to such a ballot until details can be
> provided that hopefully satisfy this simple request. In my reply, which it
> sounds like you agree with, I highlighted the problem that the existing
> Baseline Requirements are trying to address. It's unclear to me whether you
> understood, but disagreed, with my statement, or whether you simply misread
> it. Given that ISO-3166 is actively maintained - thus your recollection is,
> unfortunately, not correct or accurate - it would be useful to understand
> why you see deviating from this, and what problems you would believe it
> would solve.
>
>
>
> I appreciate your thoughtful consideration of this very simple request.
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.cabforum.org/pipermail/public/attachments/20170317/dc85ea10/attachment-0003.html>