t <public@cabforum.org>
Subject: RE: [cabfpub] Pre-Ballot 209 EV Liability
Moudrick and others, Is the following proposed change to section 18 of the EV
Guidelines more clear?18. Liability and IndemnificationCAs MAY limit their
liability as described in Section 9.8 of the Baseline Requir
: Moudrick M. Dadashov [mailto:m...@ssc.lt]
Sent: Wednesday, July 26, 2017 2:32 PM
To: Ben Wilson <ben.wil...@digicert.com>; CA/Browser Forum Public Discussion
List <public@cabforum.org>
Subject: Re: [cabfpub] Pre-Ballot 209 EV Liability
Thanks, Ben.
Assuming that any combinatio
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 explai
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
___
Public mailing list
Public@cabforum.org
https://cabforum.org/mailman/listinfo/public
um.org>; Moudrick M. Dadashov <m...@ssc.lt>
<mailto:m...@ssc.lt>
*Subject:* RE: [cabfpub] Pre-Ballot 209 EV Liability
Never mind – I think I now see your point. Not “up to” it needs
to be “not less than $5 million.” Would that make it clearer?
*Ben Wilson, JD, CISA, CIS
.
From: Moudrick M. Dadashov [mailto:m...@ssc.lt]
Sent: Tuesday, July 25, 2017 5:48 PM
To: Ben Wilson <ben.wil...@digicert.com>; CA/Browser Forum Public Discussion
List <public@cabforum.org>
Subject: Re: [cabfpub] Pre-Ballot 209 EV Liability
Would you mind to show how it wou
*To:* Ben Wilson <ben.wil...@digicert.com>; CA/Browser Forum Public
Discussion List <public@cabforum.org>; Moudrick M. Dadashov <m...@ssc.lt>
*Subject:* RE: [cabfpub] Pre-Ballot 209 EV Liability
Never mind – I think I now see your point. Not “up to” it needs to be
“not le
forum.org>; Moudrick M. Dadashov <m...@ssc.lt>
Subject: RE: [cabfpub] Pre-Ballot 209 EV Liability
Never mind – I think I now see your point. Not “up to” it needs to be “not
less than $5 million.” Would that make it clearer?
Ben Wilson, JD, CISA, CISSP
VP Compliance
+1 801 701 9678
, July 25, 2017 5:10 PM
To: Moudrick M. Dadashov <m...@ssc.lt>; CA/Browser Forum Public Discussion List
<public@cabforum.org>
Subject: Re: [cabfpub] Pre-Ballot 209 EV Liability
It’s permissive – a CA MAY limit its liability. Maybe we should say “up to $5
million”.
y, July 25, 2017 4:24 PM
*To:* Ben Wilson <ben.wil...@digicert.com>; CA/Browser Forum Public
Discussion List <public@cabforum.org>
*Subject:* Re: [cabfpub] Pre-Ballot 209 EV Liability
Ok. Do I understand the intention correctly: to have a "floating
liability" amount per EV
: Moudrick M. Dadashov [mailto:m...@ssc.lt]
Sent: Tuesday, July 25, 2017 4:24 PM
To: Ben Wilson <ben.wil...@digicert.com>; CA/Browser Forum Public Discussion
List <public@cabforum.org>
Subject: Re: [cabfpub] Pre-Ballot 209 EV Liability
Ok. Do I understand the intention correctly: to have
Moudrick,
To make sure I understand - you're trying to understand whether you have to
limit liability in both cases or neither case, correct? That is, you're
reading it as your options are (A AND B) or NOT (A or B)
By proposing "OR", I'm not sure it brings the clarity, if that's the case,
since
Hi Ben,
could it be "or" between (1) and (2)?
Thanks,
M.D.
On 7/25/2017 11:59 PM, Ben Wilson via Public wrote:
Here is another pre-ballot for discussion.
*Ballot 209 - EV Liability*
In Section 18 of the EV Guidelines, add the following sentences to the
end of the first paragraph:
13 matches
Mail list logo
