Bill Stewart asks what follows from "prohibit". In the model I am, um, hypothesizing, CAs that play by the rules are entitled to certain safe harbors shielding them from potential liability (e.g. can't be sued if their certificate was used in a transaction that went bad through no fault of theirs). No other behaviour or act is banned, but other, private, alternatives may suffer a coompetitive disadvantage since they would lack the certainty that they could not be sued. A. Michael Froomkin | +1 (305) 284-4285; +1 (305) 284-6506 (fax) Associate Professor of Law | mfroomki@umiami.ir.miami.edu U. Miami School of Law | P.O. Box 248087 | It's hot here. And humid. Coral Gables, FL 33124 USA | See http://www-swiss.ai.mit.edu/6095/articles/froomkin-metaphor/text.html and http://www.law.cornell.edu/jol/froomkin.htm