CA/Browser Forum
Home » All CA/Browser Forum Posts » Ballot 216 – Update Discussion Period Process

Ballot 216 – Update Discussion Period Process

The voting period for Ballot 216 has ended and the ballot has passed. Here are the results.

Voting by CAs – 13 votes total including abstentions

  • 13 Yes votes: Buypass, Chunghwa Telecom, Cisco, DigiCert, Disig, Entrust Datacard, GDCA, GlobalSign, HARICA, SSL.com, TrustCor, Trustwave, TurkTrust

  • 0 No votes:

  • 0 Abstain:

100% of voting CAs voted in favor

Voting by browsers – 4 votes total including abstentions

  • 4 Yes votes: Apple, Comodo Security Solutions, Google, Mozilla

  • 0 No votes:

  • 0 Abstain:

100% of voting browsers voted in favor

Under Bylaw 2.2(g), a ballot result will be considered valid only when more than half of the number of currently active Members has participated. Votes to abstain are counted in determining a quorum. Half of currently active Members as of the start of voting is 7, so quorum was 8 votes – quorum was met.

Bylaw 2.2(f) requires a yes vote by two-thirds of CA votes and 50%-plus-one browser votes for approval. Votes to abstain are not counted for this purpose. This requirement was met for both CAs and browsers.

At least one CA Member and one browser Member must vote in favor of a ballot for the ballot to be adopted. This requirement was met.

The ballot passes.

Because this Ballot only changes the Bylaws, a Review Notice will not be circulated.

Ballot 216: Update Discussion Period Process

Purpose of Ballot: The current voting procedures specify a “period of discussion”, the duration of which is fixed before the ballot process begins. This ballot updates that to instead have the period of discussion be more flexible, to avoid it expiring while discussion is ongoing and thereby voting on a sub-optimal ballot.

The following motion has been proposed by Gervase Markham of Mozilla and endorsed by Tim Hollebeek of DigiCert and Ryan Sleevi of Google:

Motion begins

This ballot modifies the CAB Forum Bylaws.

In Section 2.3(c), replace the text:

“The discussion period then shall take place for at least seven but no more than 14 calendar days before votes are cast. The proposer of the ballot will designate the length of the discussion period, and each ballot shall clearly state the start and end dates and times (including time zone) for both the discussion period and the voting period.”

with:

“The discussion period then shall take place for at least seven calendar days before votes are cast. At any time, a new version of the ballot (marked with a distinguishing version number) may be posted by the proposer in the same manner as the original. Once no new version of the ballot has been posted for seven calendar days, the proposer may end the discussion period and start the voting period by reposting the final version of the ballot and clearly indicating that voting is to begin, along with the start and end dates and times (including time zone) for the voting period. The ballot automatically fails if 21 calendar days elapse since the proposer last posted a version of the ballot and the voting period has not been started.”

Similarly, in Section 2.4(b), replace the text:

“As described in Section 2.3(c), there will be a discussion period of at least seven but no more than 14 calendar days before votes are cast on a Draft Guideline Ballot, with the start and end dates of such discussion period clearly specified in the ballot.”

with:

“As described in Section 2.3(c), there will be a discussion period of at least seven days before votes are cast on a Draft Guideline Ballot, with the start date of such discussion period clearly specified in the ballot. The discussion period shall end and the voting period shall commence also according to the procedure specified in Section 2.3(c).”

In Section 2.3(d) of the CAB Forum Bylaws, replace the text:

“Upon completion of the discussion period, Members shall have”

with:

“Upon commencement of the voting period, Members shall have”

Similarly, in Section 2.4(c), replace the text:

“As described in Section 2.3(d), upon completion of such discussion period, Members shall have”

with:

“As described in Section 2.3(d), upon commencement of the voting period, Members shall have”

Motion ends

The procedure for approval of this ballot is as follows:

Start time (22:00 UTC)End time (22:00 UTC)
Discussion (7 to 14 days)7 Dec14 Dec
Vote for approval (7 days)14 Dec21 Dec

Votes must be cast by posting an on-list reply to this thread on the Public list. 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:

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 shown on CA/Browser Forum wiki. Under Bylaw 2.2(g), at least the required quorum number must participate in the ballot for the ballot to be valid, either by voting in favor, voting against, or abstaining.

Latest releases
Code Signing Requirements
v3.8 - Aug 5, 2024

What’s Changed CSC-25: Import EV Guidelines to CS Baseline Requirements by @dzacharo in https://github.com/cabforum/code-signing/pull/38 Full Changelog: https://github.com/cabforum/code-signing/compare/v3.7...v3.8

S/MIME Requirements
v1.0.6 - Ballot SMC08 - Aug 29, 2024

This ballot sets a date by which issuance of certificates following the Legacy generation profiles must cease. It also includes the following minor updates: Pins the domain validation procedures to v 2.0.5 of the TLS Baseline Requirements while the ballot activity for multi-perspective validation is concluded, and the SMCWG determines its corresponding course of action; Updates the reference for SmtpUTF8Mailbox from RFC 8398 to RFC 9598; and Small text corrections in the Reference section

Network and Certificate System Security Requirements
v2.0 - Ballot NS-003 - Jun 26, 2024

Ballot NS-003: Restructure the NCSSRs in https://github.com/cabforum/netsec/pull/35

Edit this page
The Certification Authority Browser Forum (CA/Browser Forum) is a voluntary gathering of Certificate Issuers and suppliers of Internet browser software and other applications that use certificates (Certificate Consumers).