CA/Browser Forum posts
Posts by tag Ballot
Ballot 110 – Motion to Adopt Version 1.1 of the Bylaws(failed)
February 6, 2014 by Ben WilsonWith 6 “yes” votes from CAs (Digicert, Symantec, TrendMicro, Disig, GlobalSign, and SECOM) and 2 “no” votes from Browsers (Mozilla and Google), Ballot 110 made quorum but did not pass. On 22 January 2014, Ben Wilson of DigiCert made the following motion, endorsed by Robin Alden of Comodo and Dean Coclin of Symantec: –Motion Begins– Be it resolved that the CA / Browser Forum adopts the attached CA-Browser Forum Bylaws v. 1.1- Draft3 for Ballot 110 as its Bylaws, effective as of 6 February 2014.
February 6, 2014 by Ben WilsonWith 6 “yes” votes from CAs (Digicert, Symantec, TrendMicro, Disig, GlobalSign, and SECOM) and 2 “no” votes from Browsers (Mozilla and Google), Ballot 110 made quorum but did not pass. On 22 January 2014, Ben Wilson of DigiCert made the following motion, endorsed by Robin Alden of Comodo and Dean Coclin of Symantec: –Motion Begins– Be it resolved that the CA / Browser Forum adopts the attached CA-Browser Forum Bylaws v. 1.1- Draft3 for Ballot 110 as its Bylaws, effective as of 6 February 2014.
Ballot 114 – Improvements to the EV Definitions(passed)
January 28, 2014 by Ben WilsonVoting on Ballot 114 closed on 28 January 2014 with votes cast as follows: Yes: ANF, Buypass, CERTUM, Comodo, DigiCert, GlobalSign, Logius PKIoverheid, QuoVadis, Symantec, Trend Micro, Trustis, TURKTRUST and Mozilla. No: None. Abstain: None. Result: Ballot passes Cecilia Kam from Symantec made the following motion, and Jeremy Rowley from DigiCert and Kirk Hall from Trend Micro endorsed it. This proposal clarifies the definition of Business Entities, Private Organizations, and Incorporating Agencies. The change to Business Entity fixes the omission of non-commercial entities and clarifies that the examples are not all-encompassing. The Private Organization change helps promote EV in countries where they don’t generally use the term “Incorporating Agency”. The change in Incorporating Agency gives the guidelines a more international focus by using the term formation over incorporation and by acknowledging that businesses are generally registered, not established, with a filing.
January 28, 2014 by Ben WilsonVoting on Ballot 114 closed on 28 January 2014 with votes cast as follows: Yes: ANF, Buypass, CERTUM, Comodo, DigiCert, GlobalSign, Logius PKIoverheid, QuoVadis, Symantec, Trend Micro, Trustis, TURKTRUST and Mozilla. No: None. Abstain: None. Result: Ballot passes Cecilia Kam from Symantec made the following motion, and Jeremy Rowley from DigiCert and Kirk Hall from Trend Micro endorsed it. This proposal clarifies the definition of Business Entities, Private Organizations, and Incorporating Agencies. The change to Business Entity fixes the omission of non-commercial entities and clarifies that the examples are not all-encompassing. The Private Organization change helps promote EV in countries where they don’t generally use the term “Incorporating Agency”. The change in Incorporating Agency gives the guidelines a more international focus by using the term formation over incorporation and by acknowledging that businesses are generally registered, not established, with a filing.
Ballot 115 – Invited Guest to Meeting 31
January 23, 2014 by Ben WilsonMotion by Ben Wilson Endorsed by Symantec and Trend Micro on 1/22/2014 Pursuant to Section 5.4 of the Bylaws, “other persons” may be invited by the Chair in the Chair’s discretion to participate in a CA/Browser Forum Meeting based on a person’s relevant expertise. In light of recent discussion and the proposed Ballot 110, which if endorsed will not complete voting until 6 February 2014, I am proposing that we invite Bruce Morton of Entrust as our Invited Guest during the working group and F2F Meeting 31 from 18-20 February 2014 and that we waive the IPR Agreement requirement for purposes of such invitation.
January 23, 2014 by Ben WilsonMotion by Ben Wilson Endorsed by Symantec and Trend Micro on 1/22/2014 Pursuant to Section 5.4 of the Bylaws, “other persons” may be invited by the Chair in the Chair’s discretion to participate in a CA/Browser Forum Meeting based on a person’s relevant expertise. In light of recent discussion and the proposed Ballot 110, which if endorsed will not complete voting until 6 February 2014, I am proposing that we invite Bruce Morton of Entrust as our Invited Guest during the working group and F2F Meeting 31 from 18-20 February 2014 and that we waive the IPR Agreement requirement for purposes of such invitation.
Ballot 89 – Publish Recommendations for the Processing of EV SSL Certificates v.2(passes)
January 17, 2014 by Ben WilsonVoting on Ballot 89 closed. Ten voted in favor – Buypass, Comodo, D-TRUST, DigiCert, GoDaddy, Izenpe, SSC, Symantec, Trend Micro, and Opera. Mozilla abstained. There were none opposed. Therefore, Ballot 89 passes. Motion Rick Andrews made the following motion, and Ben Wilson and Kirk Hall endorsed it:
January 17, 2014 by Ben WilsonVoting on Ballot 89 closed. Ten voted in favor – Buypass, Comodo, D-TRUST, DigiCert, GoDaddy, Izenpe, SSC, Symantec, Trend Micro, and Opera. Mozilla abstained. There were none opposed. Therefore, Ballot 89 passes. Motion Rick Andrews made the following motion, and Ben Wilson and Kirk Hall endorsed it:
Ballot 113 – Revision to QIIS in EV Guidelines(passes)
January 13, 2014 by Ben WilsonBallot 113 – Revision to QIIS in EV Guidelines Voting ended on 13 January 2014. Quorum was 6 and 21 votes were cast-20 by CAs and 1 by Browsers. Twenty votes were in favor of the amendment. Izenpe abstained. Therefore, the ballot passes.
January 13, 2014 by Ben WilsonBallot 113 – Revision to QIIS in EV Guidelines Voting ended on 13 January 2014. Quorum was 6 and 21 votes were cast-20 by CAs and 1 by Browsers. Twenty votes were in favor of the amendment. Izenpe abstained. Therefore, the ballot passes.
Ballot 111 – Accelerate Max Certificate Lifetime Reduction Timetable
December 4, 2013 by Ben WilsonBallot 111 – Accelerate Max Certificate Lifetime Reduction Timetable Gervase Markham (Mozilla) made the following motion, endorsed by Eddy Nigg from StartCom and Ryan Hurst from Globalsign:
December 4, 2013 by Ben WilsonBallot 111 – Accelerate Max Certificate Lifetime Reduction Timetable Gervase Markham (Mozilla) made the following motion, endorsed by Eddy Nigg from StartCom and Ryan Hurst from Globalsign:
Ballot 109 – Create SSL Performance Working Group(passed)
October 28, 2013 by Ben WilsonBallot 109 – Create SSL Performance Working Group Voting on Ballot 109 has closed. Seventeen voted in favor – Buypass, Comodo, DigiCert, Disig, GlobalSign, GoDaddy, QuoVadis, SECOM, SSC, StartCom, Symantec, Trustis , TURKTRUST, Google, Microsoft, Opera, and Mozilla. There were no abstentions and none opposed. Therefore, Ballot 109 passes.
October 28, 2013 by Ben WilsonBallot 109 – Create SSL Performance Working Group Voting on Ballot 109 has closed. Seventeen voted in favor – Buypass, Comodo, DigiCert, Disig, GlobalSign, GoDaddy, QuoVadis, SECOM, SSC, StartCom, Symantec, Trustis , TURKTRUST, Google, Microsoft, Opera, and Mozilla. There were no abstentions and none opposed. Therefore, Ballot 109 passes.
Ballot 107 – Removing Version Numbers to WebTrust and ETSI Standards From CABF Guidelines
August 9, 2013 by Ben WilsonBallot 107 – Removing Version Numbers to WebTrust and ETSI Standards From CABF Guidelines (Withdrawn) Mads Henriksveen made the following motion, and Inigo Barreira from Izenpe and Kirk Hall from Trend Micro endorsed it: Motion Begins Baseline Requirements (BR)
August 9, 2013 by Ben WilsonBallot 107 – Removing Version Numbers to WebTrust and ETSI Standards From CABF Guidelines (Withdrawn) Mads Henriksveen made the following motion, and Inigo Barreira from Izenpe and Kirk Hall from Trend Micro endorsed it: Motion Begins Baseline Requirements (BR)
Ballot 108 – Defining the Scope of the Baseline Requirements
August 6, 2013 by Ben WilsonBallot 108 – Defining the Scope of the Baseline Requirements (Withdrawn) Motion Jeremy Rowley made the following motion, and Stephen Davidson and Geoff Keating endorsed it: Motion Begins Amend Section 1 of the Baseline Requirements as follows: The Baseline Requirements for the Issuance and Management of Publicly-Trusted Certificates describe a subset of the requirements that a Certification Authority must meet in order to issue Publicly Trusted Certificates. Except where explicitly stated otherwise, these requirements apply only to relevant events that occur on or after the Effective Date.
August 6, 2013 by Ben WilsonBallot 108 – Defining the Scope of the Baseline Requirements (Withdrawn) Motion Jeremy Rowley made the following motion, and Stephen Davidson and Geoff Keating endorsed it: Motion Begins Amend Section 1 of the Baseline Requirements as follows: The Baseline Requirements for the Issuance and Management of Publicly-Trusted Certificates describe a subset of the requirements that a Certification Authority must meet in order to issue Publicly Trusted Certificates. Except where explicitly stated otherwise, these requirements apply only to relevant events that occur on or after the Effective Date.
Ballot 106 – Extended Deadline to Prohibit OCSP “Good” Response for Non-Issued Certificates
August 6, 2013 by Ben WilsonBallot 106 – Extended Deadline to Prohibit OCSP “Good” Response for Non-Issued Certificates (Withdrawn) Motion Given that several CAs have notified the CA/Browser Forum that they will be unable to comply with the 1-August-2013 deadline by which OCSP responders MUST NOT respond with a “good” status for unissued certificates, and that a one-year extension of this deadline is an appropriate timeframe by which these CAs should be able to come into compliance;
August 6, 2013 by Ben WilsonBallot 106 – Extended Deadline to Prohibit OCSP “Good” Response for Non-Issued Certificates (Withdrawn) Motion Given that several CAs have notified the CA/Browser Forum that they will be unable to comply with the 1-August-2013 deadline by which OCSP responders MUST NOT respond with a “good” status for unissued certificates, and that a one-year extension of this deadline is an appropriate timeframe by which these CAs should be able to come into compliance;