I have no intent to talk about pricing or costs - however, I think the CABF should discuss the possibility that that recent ballots - singly and and as a group - have competitive implications and may be viewed as unreasonably restricting or impeding the products and offerings of members.
________________________________________ From: Public [[email protected]] on behalf of Gervase Markham via Public [[email protected]] Sent: Wednesday, February 01, 2017 6:14 AM To: CA/Browser Forum Public Discussion List Cc: Gervase Markham Subject: Re: [cabfpub] Draft Ballot 186 - Limiting the Reuse of Validation Information On 01/02/17 10:05, Stephen Davidson via Public wrote: > I agree with Peter's point: a revocation should not automatically > require a re-vetting of Org or Domain details as most revocations occur > from "good housekeeping" with keys rather than a failure of underlying > vetting. I see the problem there. Would it work to narrow that particular bullet to certain revocation reasons (perhaps by reference to the list of revocation reasons elsewhere in the BRs)? > I also point out that this ballot - and the corresponding limit on > validity - represent fairly radical changes to the SSL market, > particularly for better validated classes such as EV (where most issued > certs have two year validity). Without falling afoul of the CABF's > membership restrictions on talking price, I think it's fair to note that > the proposed restriction will, in effect, drive up the "cost per year" > of EV and limits the ability of CAs to differentiate their offerings. I would gently suggest that any discussion of this would fall afoul of the anti-trust statement, which forbids discussion of "costs" and "cost structures". Gerv _______________________________________________ Public mailing list [email protected] https://cabforum.org/mailman/listinfo/public _______________________________________________ Public mailing list [email protected] https://cabforum.org/mailman/listinfo/public
