[cabf_validation] updated draft ballot for domain validation - dated Jan. 27, 2016

[Peter Bowen]

I’m not proposing we change the term registrant, rather change:

"(b) listed in the WHOIS record’s “registration”, “technical”, or “administrative” field"

to

"(b) listed in the WHOIS record’s “registrant”, “owner”, “holder”, “technical”, or “administrative” field"

It also fixes a transcription error which changed “registrant” (in the current BRs) to “registration” (in the draft) and add the term “holder” which is used by The Internet Foundation in Sweden (iis.se <http://iis.se/>) who operate .se and .nu.

Thanks,
Peter

> On Feb 10, 2016, at 9:52 AM, Ben Wilson <ben.wilson at digicert.com> wrote:
> 
> I guess that to the extent we’re arguing about semantics, I’ll concede, but as a legal matter, I’ll reserve my arguments.  
>   <>
> From: Peter Bowen [mailto:pzb at amzn.com <mailto:pzb at amzn.com>] 
> Sent: Wednesday, February 10, 2016 10:50 AM
> To: Ben Wilson <ben.wilson at digicert.com <mailto:ben.wilson at digicert.com>>
> Cc: kirk_hall at trendmicro.com <mailto:kirk_hall at trendmicro.com>; validation at cabforum.org <mailto:validation at cabforum.org>
> Subject: Re: [cabf_validation] updated draft ballot for domain validation - dated Jan. 27, 2016
>  
> As .io is a country code TLD, they are not subject to ICANN operating agreements, as I understand it.  According to the root DB (http://www.iana.org/domains/root/db/io.html <http://www.iana.org/domains/root/db/io.html>), nic.io is the operator of the ccTLD.  See their FAQ (http://www.iana.org/domains/root/db/io.html <http://www.iana.org/domains/root/db/io.html>), in question17 where they list the different contact types.  
>  
> "Each domain has five different contacts - Owner, Admin, Technical, Billing and Registrar.
> 
> 
> Owner: This should be the contacts details for the organisation, or individual, for whom the name has been registered.
> 
> 
> Admin: The Admin contact has the same control over the domain as the Owner has but they are not the owner, they are simply allowed to act on behalf of the owner.”
> 
> 
> While I agree that ICANN has not used the term owner, it is clear that some ccTLDs do use that term.  The BRs should allow CAs to use that data if the registry/registrar uses that term.
>  
> Thanks,
> Peter
>  
> On Feb 10, 2016, at 9:37 AM, Ben Wilson <ben.wilson at digicert.com <mailto:ben.wilson at digicert.com>> wrote:
>  
> Is that use of terminology sanctioned by ICANN?  There are lots of legal reasons why we haven’t used “owner”, including some court decisions.
>  
> From: validation-bounces at cabforum.org <mailto:validation-bounces at cabforum.org> [mailto:validation-bounces at cabforum.org <mailto:validation-bounces at cabforum.org>] On Behalf Of Peter Bowen
> Sent: Wednesday, February 10, 2016 10:10 AM
> To: kirk_hall at trendmicro.com <mailto:kirk_hall at trendmicro.com>
> Cc: validation at cabforum.org <mailto:validation at cabforum.org>
> Subject: Re: [cabf_validation] updated draft ballot for domain validation - dated Jan. 27, 2016
>  
> I have one minor change to request.  We discovered that the .IO TLD uses the term “owner” in their WHOIS rather than “registrant”.  Can we add “owner” to the allowable contact types?
>  
> On Feb 10, 2016, at 9:08 AM, kirk_hall at trendmicro.com <mailto:kirk_hall at trendmicro.com> wrote:
>  
> Thanks, Robin – so this is the document we will use for our call tomorrow.  After the call, can you (Robin) make any final changes, and send to the Public list to be discussed at the F2F next week?
>  
> From: Robin Alden [mailto:robin at comodo.com <mailto:robin at comodo.com>] 
> Sent: Wednesday, February 10, 2016 11:40 AM
> To: Kirk Hall (RD-US); validation at cabforum.org <mailto:validation at cabforum.org>
> Subject: RE: [cabf_validation] updated draft ballot for domain validation - dated Jan. 27, 2016
>  
> I’ve made the changes we discussed into the document.  I also made some further changes to D (2) and F (4).
> I’ve also got H (6) and J (7) to about where I want them in terms of using a redefined Request Token.
>  
> I’m happy with Doug’s Test Certificate method, which surprised me.
>  
> I think we could write a book of commentary on this section when it’s completed.  Not just so other people understand it but also to remind ourselves how we arrived where we are now J
>  
> Regards
> Robin
>  
>  
> From: validation-bounces at cabforum.org <mailto:validation-bounces at cabforum.org> [mailto:validation-bounces at cabforum.org <mailto:validation-bounces at cabforum.org>] On Behalf Of kirk_hall at trendmicro.com <mailto:kirk_hall at trendmicro.com>
> Sent: 27 January 2016 21:48
> To: validation at cabforum.org <mailto:validation at cabforum.org>
> Subject: [cabf_validation] updated draft ballot for domain validation - dated Jan. 27, 2016
>  
> Doug, Peter, Jeremy, and Robin worked on the attached updated draft ballot for domain validation – let’s discuss and work from this on our Thursday call.
>  
> Doug – you took the lead on creating this updated document – can you walk us through the changes on the call?  Thanks.
>  
> TREND MICRO EMAIL NOTICE
> The information contained in this email and any attachments is confidential 
> and may be subject to copyright or other intellectual property protection. 
> If you are not the intended recipient, you are not authorized to use or 
> disclose this information, and we request that you notify us by reply mail or
> telephone and delete the original message from your mail system.
>  
> TREND MICRO EMAIL NOTICE
> The information contained in this email and any attachments is confidential 
> and may be subject to copyright or other intellectual property protection. 
> If you are not the intended recipient, you are not authorized to use or 
> disclose this information, and we request that you notify us by reply mail or
> telephone and delete the original message from your mail system.
> _______________________________________________
> Validation mailing list
> Validation at cabforum.org <mailto:Validation at cabforum.org>
> https://cabforum.org/mailman/listinfo/validation <https://cabforum.org/mailman/listinfo/validation>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: https://cabforum.org/pipermail/validation/attachments/20160210/b5479e0c/attachment-0001.html