The rationale is that it is already current practice by many CAs to limit their total liability for CA operations. Also, not that this will save anybody from going out of business in the event of a serious breach, and I suspect that such CA would simply file for bankruptcy protection, but it does map the $5 Million liability to the $5 Million in Errors and Omissions liability. Some other members can probably provide some additional reasons why this ballot is a good thing--not just for CAs.
-----Original Message----- From: Gervase Markham [mailto:g...@mozilla.org] Sent: Monday, July 31, 2017 9:27 AM To: Ben Wilson <ben.wil...@digicert.com>; CA/Browser Forum Public Discussion List <public@cabforum.org> Subject: Re: [cabfpub] Pre-Ballot 209 EV Liability On 25/07/17 21:59, Ben Wilson via Public wrote: > Here is another pre-ballot for discussion. Can you explain the rationale for this ballot? Gerv
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
_______________________________________________ Public mailing list Public@cabforum.org https://cabforum.org/mailman/listinfo/public
