Just inside lines 276-279, I suggest we replace "Applicant" with "Applicant/Subscriber" so it would read:
**Applicant/Subscriber Representative**: A natural person or human sponsor who is either the Applicant/Subscriber, employed by the Applicant/Subscriber, or an authorized agent who has express authority to represent the Applicant/Subscriber: i. who signs and submits, or approves a certificate request on behalf of the Applicant/Subscriber, and/or ii. who accepts a Subscriber Agreement on behalf of the Applicant/Subscriber. Thanks, Ben On Wed, Oct 25, 2023 at 7:47 PM Dustin Hollenback via Servercert-wg < servercert-wg@cabforum.org> wrote: > Hello all, > > > > This is a request for feedback for this draft ballot. > > > > Thank you, > > > > > > Dustin > > > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > > *Purpose of Ballot SC-067* > > This ballot proposes updates to the Baseline Requirements for the Issuance > and Management of Publicly-Trusted Certificates related to Subscriber > Agreements and Terms of Use. It combines the requirements for both into > only the Subscriber Agreement and clarifies the requirement language. It > removes the requirement and reference to "Terms of Use". It also modifies > details related to Subscriber, Applicant, and representatives for them. > > > > Notes: > > • This removes any ambiguity to ensure that there is no > requirement that the Subscriber Agreement be legally enforceable when the > CA and Subscriber are affiliated. > > • This updates definitions for “Applicant”, “Subscriber” and > “Subscriber Agreement” and removes the definition for “Terms of Use” as > these separate concepts are creating unnecessary work for CAs and > Subscribers without adding any value when separated. > > • This adds a new definition for “Applicant/Subscriber” to > account for scenarios where a person or entity may be either. And renames > “Applicant Representative” to “Applicant/Subscriber Representative” and > updated definition to account for reseller scenarios. > > • As observed with other ballots in the past, minor > administrative updates must be made to the proposed ballot text before > publication such that the appropriate Version # and Change History are > accurately represented (e.g., to indicate these changes will be represented > in Version 2.0.2). > > • This ballot does not modify the “Guidelines for the > Issuance and Management of Extended Validation Certificates”. More work > will be made to that document after changes are finalized in this one. > > > > The following motion has been proposed by Dustin Hollenback of Microsoft, > and endorsed by Tadahiko Ito of SECOM and Ben Wilson of Mozilla. > > > > *— Motion Begins —* > > > > This ballot modifies the “Baseline Requirements for the Issuance and > Management of Publicly-Trusted Certificates” (“Baseline Requirements”), > based on Version 2.0.1. > > > > MODIFY the Baseline Requirements as specified in the following Redline: > > > > Here is a link to the GitHub redline: > > > https://github.com/cabforum/servercert/compare/90a98dc7c1131eaab01af411968aa7330d315b9b...9eebd9949810f698edd5087235acaf16e04ead21 > > > > *— Motion Ends —* > > > > This ballot proposes a Final Maintenance Guideline. The procedure for > approval of this ballot is as follows: > > > > *Discussion (7+ days)* > > • Start time: XXXX-XX-XX 22:00:00 UTC > > • End time: XXXX-XX-XX 22:00:00 UTC > > > > *Vote for approval (7 days)* > > • Start time: XXXX-XX-XX 22:00:00 UTC > > • End time: XXXX-XX-XX 22:00:00 UTC > > > > > > ---------------------- > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > Servercert-wg mailing list > Servercert-wg@cabforum.org > https://lists.cabforum.org/mailman/listinfo/servercert-wg >
_______________________________________________ Servercert-wg mailing list Servercert-wg@cabforum.org https://lists.cabforum.org/mailman/listinfo/servercert-wg
