CA/Browser Forum posts
Posts by tag Ballot
Ballot 160 – Amend Section 4 of Baseline Requirements
February 4, 2016 by Ben WilsonVoting on Ballot 160 closed on 4 February 2016. There were 18 YES votes, 0 NO votes and 0 Abstentions from CAs. There were 3 YES votes, and 0 NO or Abstention votes from Browsers. Therefore, the ballot passes. Ballot 160 – Amend Section 4 of Baseline Requirements The Policy Review Working Group has reviewed Section 4 of the Baseline Requirements and, as a result, suggests that certain changes be made.
February 4, 2016 by Ben WilsonVoting on Ballot 160 closed on 4 February 2016. There were 18 YES votes, 0 NO votes and 0 Abstentions from CAs. There were 3 YES votes, and 0 NO or Abstention votes from Browsers. Therefore, the ballot passes. Ballot 160 – Amend Section 4 of Baseline Requirements The Policy Review Working Group has reviewed Section 4 of the Baseline Requirements and, as a result, suggests that certain changes be made.
Ballot 157 – Adopt version 1.2 of the Intellectual Property Rights Policy
February 4, 2016 by Ben WilsonFor Ballot 157 (Amend IPR Policy), there were 13 YES votes, 0 NO votes and 3 Abstentions from CAs. There were 4 YES votes, and 0 NO or Abstention votes from Browsers. Therefore, the ballot passes. Members are now asked to fulfill the requirements of Ballot 157 as indicated in the ballot. Ballot 157 – Adopt version 1.2 of the Intellectual Property Rights Policy The Patent Advisory Group (PAG) was convened to review potential issues with the interpretation of the CA/Browser Forum’s Intellectual Property Rights Policy (IPR Policy).
February 4, 2016 by Ben WilsonFor Ballot 157 (Amend IPR Policy), there were 13 YES votes, 0 NO votes and 3 Abstentions from CAs. There were 4 YES votes, and 0 NO or Abstention votes from Browsers. Therefore, the ballot passes. Members are now asked to fulfill the requirements of Ballot 157 as indicated in the ballot. Ballot 157 – Adopt version 1.2 of the Intellectual Property Rights Policy The Patent Advisory Group (PAG) was convened to review potential issues with the interpretation of the CA/Browser Forum’s Intellectual Property Rights Policy (IPR Policy).
Ballot 158 – Adoption of Code Signing Baseline Requirements
December 17, 2015 by Ben WilsonVoting on Ballot 158 (Code Signing BRs) closed on 17 December 2015. The results are as follows: In the CA category, 17 CAs voted YES, 1 voted NO and 3 Abstained In the Browser category, 2 browsers voted YES, 3 browsers voted NO and none Abstained Therefore the ballot fails. Detailed results can be seen here: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1FBsMZjlzyvK3mFR1u4qMqvZwlI86yJ-v0am1pCBo8uI/edit#gid=4 After a 2 week pre-ballot, the Code Signing Working Group has now prepared the formal ballot below:
December 17, 2015 by Ben WilsonVoting on Ballot 158 (Code Signing BRs) closed on 17 December 2015. The results are as follows: In the CA category, 17 CAs voted YES, 1 voted NO and 3 Abstained In the Browser category, 2 browsers voted YES, 3 browsers voted NO and none Abstained Therefore the ballot fails. Detailed results can be seen here: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1FBsMZjlzyvK3mFR1u4qMqvZwlI86yJ-v0am1pCBo8uI/edit#gid=4 After a 2 week pre-ballot, the Code Signing Working Group has now prepared the formal ballot below:
Ballot 156 – Amend Sections 1 and 2 of Baseline Requirements
December 3, 2015 by Ben WilsonVoting on Ballot 156 (Amend sections 1 & 2 of BRs) closed on 3 December 2015. In the CA category, we received 19 YES votes, 0 NO votes and 1 Abstention In the browser category, we received 1 YES vote, 0 NO votes and 0 Abstention Therefore, the ballot passes. Full ballot results can be found here. The Policy Review Working Group has reviewed Sections 1 and 2 of the Baseline Requirements and, as a result, suggests that certain changes be made to them.
December 3, 2015 by Ben WilsonVoting on Ballot 156 (Amend sections 1 & 2 of BRs) closed on 3 December 2015. In the CA category, we received 19 YES votes, 0 NO votes and 1 Abstention In the browser category, we received 1 YES vote, 0 NO votes and 0 Abstention Therefore, the ballot passes. Full ballot results can be found here. The Policy Review Working Group has reviewed Sections 1 and 2 of the Baseline Requirements and, as a result, suggests that certain changes be made to them.
Ballots 154 and 155 – Convert to RFC 3647 Framework and GitHub
November 18, 2015 by Ben WilsonBallots 154 and 155 – Convert to RFC 3647 Framework and GitHub Ballot 154 and 155, Convert documents to RFC 3647 Framework and GitHub, closed on November 17th 2015. The Chair received 24 votes from CAs in which 24 were in favor, 0 against and 02 abstentions and 02 votes from Browsers in which 02 were in favor, 0 against and 0 abstention. Therefore, the ballot passes. The Certificate Policy Review Working Group was chartered by Ballot 128 to (i) consider existing and proposed standards, (ii) create a list of potential improvements based on the considered standards that improve the existing CAB Forum work product, (iii) evaluate the transition to a 3647 format based on the amount of work involved.
November 18, 2015 by Ben WilsonBallots 154 and 155 – Convert to RFC 3647 Framework and GitHub Ballot 154 and 155, Convert documents to RFC 3647 Framework and GitHub, closed on November 17th 2015. The Chair received 24 votes from CAs in which 24 were in favor, 0 against and 02 abstentions and 02 votes from Browsers in which 02 were in favor, 0 against and 0 abstention. Therefore, the ballot passes. The Certificate Policy Review Working Group was chartered by Ballot 128 to (i) consider existing and proposed standards, (ii) create a list of potential improvements based on the considered standards that improve the existing CAB Forum work product, (iii) evaluate the transition to a 3647 format based on the amount of work involved.
Ballot 155 – Convert Network and Certificate System Security Requirements to RFC 3647 Framework and GitHub
November 15, 2015 by Ben WilsonThis ballot was withdrawn.
November 15, 2015 by Ben WilsonThis ballot was withdrawn.
Ballot 153 – Short-Lived Certificates
November 11, 2015 by Ben WilsonBallot 153 – Short-Lived Certificates Ballot 153, Short-Lived Certificates revision, closed on November 10th 2015. The Chair received 26 votes from CAs in which 04 were in favor, 17 against and 05 abstentions and 05 votes from Browsers in which 04 were in favor, 01 against and 0 abstention. Therefore the ballot fails. The following motion has been proposed by Jeremy Rowley of DigiCert and endorsed by Ryan Sleevi of Google and Gervase Markham of Mozilla.
November 11, 2015 by Ben WilsonBallot 153 – Short-Lived Certificates Ballot 153, Short-Lived Certificates revision, closed on November 10th 2015. The Chair received 26 votes from CAs in which 04 were in favor, 17 against and 05 abstentions and 05 votes from Browsers in which 04 were in favor, 01 against and 0 abstention. Therefore the ballot fails. The following motion has been proposed by Jeremy Rowley of DigiCert and endorsed by Ryan Sleevi of Google and Gervase Markham of Mozilla.
Ballot 151 – Addition of Optional OIDs for Indicating Level of Validation
September 28, 2015 by Ben WilsonBallot 151 – Addition of Optional OIDs for Indicating Level of Validation Ballot 151, OID revisions, closed on September 28th 2015. The Chair received 22 votes from CAs in which 19 were in favor, 0 against and 3 abstentions and 3 votes from Browsers in which 2 were in favor, 0 against and 1 abstention. Therefore the ballot passes. The following motion has been proposed by Dean Coclin of Symantec and endorsed by Jeremy Rowley of Digicert and Kirk Hall of Trend Micro.
September 28, 2015 by Ben WilsonBallot 151 – Addition of Optional OIDs for Indicating Level of Validation Ballot 151, OID revisions, closed on September 28th 2015. The Chair received 22 votes from CAs in which 19 were in favor, 0 against and 3 abstentions and 3 votes from Browsers in which 2 were in favor, 0 against and 1 abstention. Therefore the ballot passes. The following motion has been proposed by Dean Coclin of Symantec and endorsed by Jeremy Rowley of Digicert and Kirk Hall of Trend Micro.