[cabf_validation] Latin Notary Ballot
Ben Wilson
ben.wilson at digicert.com
Thu May 18 15:23:37 MST 2017
Jeremy, Doug, and Kirk,
Here are some edits to your proposed ballot:
Ballot 192 - Notary Clarification.
Currently, section 11.11.1(A)(ii) states,
11.11.1. Verified Legal Opinion
(1) Verification Requirements: Before relying on a legal opinion
submitted to the CA, the CA MUST verify that such legal opinion meets the
following requirements:
(A) Status of Author: The CA MUST verify that the legal opinion is
authored by an independent legal practitioner retained by and representing
the Applicant (or an in-house legal practitioner employed by the Applicant)
(Legal Practitioner) who is either:
.
(ii) A notary that is a member of the International Union of Latin
Notaries, and is licensed to practice in the country of the Applicant's
Jurisdiction of Incorporation or Registration or any jurisdiction where the
Applicant maintains an office or physical facility (and that such
jurisdiction recognizes the role of the Latin Notary);
The EV Guidelines already define "Latin Notary" appropriately and
sufficiently as "A person with legal training whose commission under
applicable law not only includes authority to authenticate the execution of
a signature on a document but also responsibility for the correctness and
content of the document. A Latin Notary is sometimes referred to as a Civil
Law Notary."
Whether a Latin Notary (or Civil Law Notary) is a member of the IULN should
not be dispositive as to whether the person is competent and qualified to
provide a legal opinion. The current wording of section 11.11.1(A)(ii)
means we cannot accept letters from proper Latin Notaries (individuals) who
aren't members of the IULN.
By deleting the requirement that a Latin Notary be a member of the
International Union of Latin Notaries, this ballot permits a more extensive
view on who can provide the type of legal opinion required by the EV
Guidelines.
--MOTION BEGINS--
A. Effective immediately, modify 11.11.1(A) as follows:
'''11.11.1. Verified Legal Opinion'''
(1) '''Verification Requirements''': Before relying on a legal opinion
submitted to the CA, the CA MUST verify that such legal opinion meets the
following requirements:
(A) '''Status of Author''': The CA MUST verify that the legal opinion is
authored by an independent legal practitioner retained by and representing
the Applicant (or an in-house legal practitioner employed by the Applicant)
(Legal Practitioner) who is either:
(i) A lawyer (or solicitor, barrister, advocate, or equivalent) licensed to
practice law in the country of the Applicant's Jurisdiction of Incorporation
or Registration or any jurisdiction where the Applicant maintains an office
or physical facility, or
(ii) A Latin Notary who is currently commissioned or licensed to practice in
the country of the Applicant's Jurisdiction of Incorporation or Registration
or any jurisdiction where the Applicant maintains an office or physical
facility (and that jurisdiction recognizes the role of the Latin Notary);
--MOTION ENDS--
From: Validation [mailto:validation-bounces at cabforum.org] On Behalf Of Ben
Wilson via Validation
Sent: Thursday, February 9, 2017 8:45 AM
To: validation at cabforum.org <mailto:validation at cabforum.org>
Cc: Ben Wilson <ben.wilson at digicert.com <mailto:ben.wilson at digicert.com> >
Subject: Re: [cabf_validation] Minutes for January 26th
Doug,
If you prepared a ballot for this, I think DigiCert would be willing to
endorse.
Ben
Ben Wilson, JD, CISA, CISSP
VP Compliance
+1 801 701 9678
From: Validation [mailto:validation-bounces at cabforum.org] On Behalf Of Doug
Beattie via Validation
Sent: Thursday, February 9, 2017 7:05 AM
To: CA/Browser Forum Validation WG List <validation at cabforum.org
<mailto:validation at cabforum.org> >
Cc: Doug Beattie <doug.beattie at globalsign.com
<mailto:doug.beattie at globalsign.com> >
Subject: Re: [cabf_validation] Minutes for January 26th
Jeremy,
Someone on our vetting team provided me this info. Is this something others
have encountered?
We have a specific problem with Notaries in Belarus (can you imagine?) that
relates to a wider problem: There's this line in the EV Guidelines that
require that a notary is a "member of the International Union of Latin
Notaries, and is licensed to practice in the country of the Applicant's
Jurisdiction of Incorporation or Registration or any jurisdiction where the
Applicant maintains an office or physical facility". (See 11.11.1)
Long story short: being a member of the IULN means you are a Latin Notary.
Not being a member doesn't mean you're not a Latin Notary. Latin Notary
should be defined by what you can do: "authenticate the execution of a
signature on a document" and are responsible "for the correctness and
content of the document.", not by membership of IULN, which is sufficient
but not required. IULN is just an organization that brings together
governing bodies. At the moment, this means we can't accept letters from
proper Latin Notaries (individuals) that aren't members of the IULN (which
is silly and goes against the reasons for the rules in the first place).
Proposed change in wording below.
Can the wording be updated as follows:
11.11.1. Verified Legal Opinion
(1) Verification Requirements: Before relying on a legal opinion submitted
to the CA, the CA MUST verify that such legal opinion meets the following
requirements:
(A) Status of Author: The CA MUST verify that the legal opinion is authored
by an independent legal practitioner retained by and representing the
Applicant (or an in-house legal practitioner employed by the Applicant)
(Legal
Practitioner) who is either:
(i) A lawyer (or solicitor, barrister, advocate, or equivalent) licensed to
practice law in the country of the Applicant's Jurisdiction of Incorporation
or Registration or any jurisdiction where the Applicant maintains an
office or physical facility, or
(ii) A notary that is licensed to practice in the country of the Applicant's
Jurisdiction of Incorporation or Registration or any jurisdiction where the
Applicant maintains an office or physical facility (and that such
jurisdiction recognizes the role of the Latin Notary);
Then, for the definition of Latin Notary:
Latin Notary: A person with legal training whose commission under applicable
law not only includes authority to authenticate the execution of a signature
on a document but also responsibility for the correctness and content of the
document. A Latin Notary is sometimes referred to as a Civil Law Notary. A
Notary that is licenced by a licencing body that is a member of the
International Union of Latin Notaries is a Latin Notary.
This would mean we can accept letters of attestation from proper Latin
Notaries that aren't a member of the IULN without being going against EV
guidelines the letter (but following the spirit)
What do you think?
From: Validation [mailto:validation-bounces at cabforum.org] On Behalf Of
Jeremy Rowley via Validation
Sent: Wednesday, February 8, 2017 7:55 PM
To: CA/Browser Forum Validation WG List <validation at cabforum.org
<mailto:validation at cabforum.org> >
Cc: Jeremy Rowley <jeremy.rowley at digicert.com
<mailto:jeremy.rowley at digicert.com> >
Subject: [cabf_validation] Minutes for January 26th
1. Section 7.1.4.2.2 - Bruce sent out a proposal that changes the text
for required/optional. Jurisdictional state information is already optional
so the change only points to the place of business. The working group will
move forward with Bruce's ballot to address place of business. We won't deal
with jurisdiction as it's already covered.
2. CNAME - Delayed until the DNS validation ballot moves forward.
3. Verification Databases - The goal is to standardize the validation
process for OV. However, what is driving this change? So far there isn't a
driving factor to further standardize over the existing guidelines. Right
now we don't have a list of verification databases for EV so this doesn't
need to be done for OV. This adds complexity on how the CAB Forum approves
and maintains databases.
4. Well-known registration - Ben followed up with Mark. We think this
is complete. Wayne had a couple of issues with the language:
a. Implication in language that there has to be more than the random
value or request token. Confusion is introduced by "Required website
content". This is a comma error. This should be a random value OR a request
token with information specified by the CA. You want to prevent people from
trolling around looking for request tokens. The easy fix is to change the
definition to random value or request token with information that identifies
the subscriber.
b. Request Value is listed. Should be Random Value.
c. There are a couple of sections that refer to 3.3.1 of BRs dealing
with data reuse. Should point to a different section.
These are all minor errors. We should add them to a ballot to clean this up.
We should add this to the ballot that re-adds the two methods dropped that
didn't have exclusion notices. We shouldn't add this to the reuse ballot.
Wayne will reach out to Gerv to see if he will include these in the same
ballot.
5. IP Validation - Jeremy still needs to do an update.
6. SRV/Other Name/822Name - Peter and Jeremy will sync up to work on
it. We will create a procedure for otherNames.
7. ANS.1 Ballot - Completed. Just waiting for ballots to resume
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://cabforum.org/pipermail/validation/attachments/20170518/51e8b77c/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image002.jpg
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 6183 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://cabforum.org/pipermail/validation/attachments/20170518/51e8b77c/attachment-0001.jpg>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/pkcs7-signature
Size: 4974 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://cabforum.org/pipermail/validation/attachments/20170518/51e8b77c/attachment-0001.bin>
More information about the Validation
mailing list