Hi Ben,

I know we haven’t started the discussion phase, but we have some comments from 
our legal team.

Section 1.6.1, the new Subscriber Agreement definition would narrow 
considerably the defined scope of a Subscriber Agreement. The narrowed scope 
would not accommodate all the BR requirements for what a SA must contain. We 
suggest the following definition “A set of terms and conditions accepted by the 
Applicant/Subscriber that specifies the rights and responsibilities of the 
Applicant/Subscriber and the CA.”

Section 9.6.1, there have been two new warranties added which do not provide 
any value; and the second one may cause confusion and disruption. With respect 
to i., making the most current version of the SA available, all CAs are already 
required to do this by putting the SA into their repository.  With respect to 
ii., it should not matter whether the “applicable” version of the SA happens to 
be the version accepted at the time of issuance. The original warranty in 
9.6.1(5), which is being kept, is the only one that matters, i.e. that there is 
an SA in place that meets the Requirements. As such, we recommend the two new 
proposed warranties be dropped.


Thanks, Bruce.

From: Servercert-wg <[email protected]> On Behalf Of Ben 
Wilson via Servercert-wg
Sent: Wednesday, August 16, 2023 3:46 PM
To: Clint Wilson <[email protected]>
Cc: ServerCert CA/BF <[email protected]>
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [Servercert-wg] SC-XXX: Modify Subscriber Agreement and 
Terms of Use

Hi Clint, Basically, that's about it, except by removing the separate "Terms of 
Use" and collapsing that concept into "Subscriber Agreement" there are places 
where "agreeing" and "legally binding"

Hi Clint,

Basically, that's about it, except by removing the separate "Terms of Use" and 
collapsing that concept into "Subscriber Agreement" there are places where 
"agreeing" and "legally binding" may get watered down. "Agree" is replaced with 
"accept" in some places, and in two places "legally binding" is preserved for 
unaffiliated parties but not between affiliates (line 3364 and line 3380), but 
I don't think that make the proposed language less protective than it is with 
the current "Terms of Use" language.

That being said, we could expand the scope of the ballot to address other 
"Subscriber Agreement" issues, if anyone can articulate them and present 
acceptable language that would address them.

Dustin Hollenback is the proposer of this ballot, so he may have additional 
points he'd like to make or clarify.

Thanks,
Ben

On Wed, Aug 16, 2023 at 12:29 PM Clint Wilson 
<[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
Hi Ben,

As I understand it the goal of these changes is just to simplify the terms used 
in the BRs — and, as has been brought up separately, potentially other CA/BF 
Final Guidelines — in order to enable collapsing their use of “Terms of Use” 
into the concept of the “Subscriber Agreement”. Is that an accurate description 
of the intent of this draft? Are there any other goals or outcomes being aimed 
at with these changes?

Thanks!
-Clint


On Aug 14, 2023, at 12:40 PM, Ben Wilson via Servercert-wg 
<[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:

Hi,
Dustin Hollenback and I are looking for another endorser for a proposed ballot 
- see 
https://github.com/cabforum/servercert/compare/a0360b61e73476959220dc328e3b68d0224fa0b3..663695b8319c0cd32e0060bb9304ecd32e3737a1<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/github.com/cabforum/servercert/compare/a0360b61e73476959220dc328e3b68d0224fa0b3..663695b8319c0cd32e0060bb9304ecd32e3737a1__;!!FJ-Y8qCqXTj2!caJCPNsLJuFgUjMFcLQlOVayzlOKN08OAOHZ8LKuWYmXR5Fh61slDQy7tooRz-EzcdPxJtbzdkmd-lWFM8Xtb2sjK4d54w$>
It would remove the concept of a separate "Terms of Use" and replace it with 
"Subscriber Agreement" and make several other changes with respect to 
"Subscriber Agreements".
Is anyone interested in endorsing?
Thanks,
Ben
_______________________________________________
Servercert-wg mailing list
[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>
https://lists.cabforum.org/mailman/listinfo/servercert-wg<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/lists.cabforum.org/mailman/listinfo/servercert-wg__;!!FJ-Y8qCqXTj2!caJCPNsLJuFgUjMFcLQlOVayzlOKN08OAOHZ8LKuWYmXR5Fh61slDQy7tooRz-EzcdPxJtbzdkmd-lWFM8Xtb2t-SB_Ohg$>

Any email and files/attachments transmitted with it are intended solely for the 
use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed. If this message has 
been sent to you in error, you must not copy, distribute or disclose of the 
information it contains. Please notify Entrust immediately and delete the 
message from your system.
_______________________________________________
Servercert-wg mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.cabforum.org/mailman/listinfo/servercert-wg

Reply via email to