GDCA votes YES to ballot 174.
原始邮件
发件人:Volkan [email protected]
收件人:'CABFPub'[email protected]
发送时间:2016年8月24日(周三) 14:50
主题:Re: [cabfpub] Ballot 174 - Reform of Requirements Relating toConflicts with
Local Law
TURKTRUST votes YES
Regards,
Volkan NERGİZ
Quality Management System Specialist
TURKTRUST Information Security Services Inc.
Address: Hollanda Caddesi 696. Sokak No: 7 Yıldız, Çankaya 06550 – ANKARA
Phone: +90312 439 10 00 - Ext: 226 Fax: +90312 439 10 01
E-Mail: [email protected]
Web: www.turktrust.com.tr
On Mon, Aug 15, 2016 at 2:03 AM, Gervase Markham [email protected] wrote:
Ballot 174 - Reform of Requirements Relating to Conflicts with Local Law
The following motion has been proposed by Gervase Markham of Mozilla and
endorsed by Kirk Hall of Entrust and Moudrick Dadashov of SSC:
Statement of Intent: The purpose of this change is to reform section 9.16.3 of
the BRs, titled "Severability", which deals with what a CA must do when it
encounters a conflict between the requirements of a jurisdiction under which it
operates and the requirements of the BRs. At the moment, this clause is
triggered only by a court determination rather than by the CA encountering a
conflict, which makes it unlikely to ever be triggered, and it requires
notification to the CAB Forum but not documentation of the outcome. The current
clause is:
9.16.3. Severability
If a court or government body with jurisdiction over the activities covered by
these Requirements determines that the performance of any mandatory requirement
is illegal, then such requirement is considered reformed to the minimum extent
necessary to make the requirement valid and legal. This applies only to
operations or certificate issuances that are subject to the laws of that
jurisdiction. The parties involved SHALL notify the CA / Browser Forum of the
facts, circumstances, and law(s) involved, so that the CA/Browser Forum may
revise these Requirements accordingly.
--Motion Begins--
Delete section 9.16.3 from the Baseline Requirements in its entirety and
replace it with the following:
9.16.3. Severability
In the event of a conflict between these Requirements and a law, regulation or
government order (hereinafter 'Law') of any jurisdiction in which a CA operates
or issues certificates, a CA MAY modify any conflicting requirement to the
minimum extent necessary to make the requirement valid and legal in the
jurisdiction. This applies only to operations or certificate issuances that are
subject to that Law. In such event, the CA SHALL immediately (and prior to
issuing a certificate under the modified requirement) include in Section 9.16.3
of the CA’s CPS a detailed reference to the Law requiring a modification of
these Requirements under this section, and the specific modification to these
Requirements implemented by the CA.
The CA MUST also (prior to issuing a certificate under the modified
requirements) notify the CA/Browser Forum of the relevant information newly
added to its CPS by sending a message to [email protected] and receiving
confirmation that it has been posted to the Public Mailing List and is indexed
in the Public Mail Archives available at https://cabforum.org/pipermail/public/
(or such other email addresses and links as the Forum may designate), so that
the CA/Browser Forum may consider possible revisions to these Requirements
accordingly.
Any modification to CA practice enabled under this section MUST be discontinued
if and when the Law no longer applies, or these Requirements are modified to
make it possible to comply with both them and the Law simultaneously. An
appropriate change in practice, modification to the CA’s CPS and a notice to
the CA/Browser Forum, as outlined above, MUST be made within 90 days.
CAs are required to make this change to their processes by a date 90 days from
the date this ballot passes.
--Motion Ends--
The review period for this ballot shall commence immediately and close at 2200
UTC on Monday 22nd August. Unless the motion is withdrawn during the review
period, the voting period will start immediately thereafter and will close at
2200 UTC on Monday 29th August. Votes must be cast by posting an on-list reply
to this thread.
A vote in favor of the motion must indicate a clear 'yes' in the response. A
vote against must indicate a clear 'no' in the response. A vote to abstain must
indicate a clear 'abstain' in the response. Unclear responses will not be
counted. The latest vote received from any representative of a voting member
before the close of the voting period will be counted. Voting members are
listed here: https://cabforum.org/members/
In order for the motion to be adopted, two thirds or more of the votes cast by
members in the CA category and greater than 50% of the votes cast by members in
the browser category must be in favor. Quorum is currently ten (10) members –
at least ten members must participate in the ballot, either by voting in favor,
voting against, or abstaining.
_______________________________________________
Public mailing list
[email protected]
https://cabforum.org/mailman/listinfo/public
_______________________________________________
Public mailing list
[email protected]
https://cabforum.org/mailman/listinfo/public
