[cabf_validation] Two alternative drafts of Ballot 225 for discussion at the VWG meeting on Tuesday

[Kirk Hall]

It's true we suggested multiple proposers and endorsers in an earlier draft,
but the pre-ballot drafts I sent with the message below (Alt. A and Alt. B)
only show Chris as proposer, and no endorsers (space for two).  So I think
these drafts don't present any problems, do they?

 

From: Tim Hollebeek [mailto:tim.hollebeek at digicert.com] 
Sent: Friday, June 1, 2018 2:46 PM
To: Kirk Hall <Kirk.Hall at entrustdatacard.com>; CA/Browser Forum Validation
WG List <validation at cabforum.org>
Subject: [EXTERNAL]RE: Two alternative drafts of Ballot 225 for discussion
at the VWG meeting on Tuesday

 

I really like the direction Alternative B is going in, and need more time to
review it, but I did notice some language that I believe does not comply
with the Bylaws, and would render these ballot invalid.

 

>From our Bylaws (parenthetical notes are mine):

 

"A representative (singular) of any Member can call for a proposed ballot to
be published for discussion and comment by the membership. Any proposed
ballot needs two (2) endorsements by other Members in order to proceed."

 

I've objected on previous occasions to the highly non-standard,
unprecedented multiple proposer model, and I continue to believe it does not
and cannot be made to comply with our Bylaws.  I'm not sure why this ballot
can't follow the normal proposer and two endorser model we always use, and
our Bylaws require.  I'd suggest the authors fix these ballots to be more
conventional ballots.

 

-Tim

 

From: Validation [mailto:validation-bounces at cabforum.org] On Behalf Of Kirk
Hall via Validation
Sent: Friday, June 1, 2018 5:34 PM
To: CA/Browser Forum Validation WG List <validation at cabforum.org
<mailto:validation at cabforum.org> >
Subject: [cabf_validation] Two alternative drafts of Ballot 225 for
discussion at the VWG meeting on Tuesday

 

Chris sent out a draft Ballot 225 on improving EV validation to the VWG for
consideration on  May 21 (resubmitted with this email as Alternative A).  A
number of comments were posted, including some comments that didn't support
the idea of any waiting  period before an applicant can get an EV cert for a
newer company but were open to imposing new operational existence validation
requirements for newer companies seeking an EV cert.

 

Cecelia (GlobalSign) and Joanna (GoDaddy) worked together to create a
simpler version of Ballot 225 (attached Alternative B) that does the
following:

 

High level changes in Alternative B: 

1.       Added QTIS Definition - as already agreed 

2.       Remove 18 month restriction on getting an EV cert as it seems
controversial 

3.       Require that companies less than 36 months verify operational
existence

4.       Removed QIIS as an option 

5.       Added the requirement to contact the bank if using #2

 

We attach both Chris' original ballot (Alt. A) and Cecelia/Joanna's
different proposal (Alt. B) for discussion at the VWG meeting on Tuesday.
The final ballot could be one or the other, a mix of the two, or something
else entirely.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://cabforum.org/pipermail/validation/attachments/20180601/ab14c176/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/pkcs7-signature
Size: 5887 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://cabforum.org/pipermail/validation/attachments/20180601/ab14c176/attachment-0001.p7s>