The thing is that it wasn't a comprehensive answer. It was a wall of text that attempted to appear like it was giving an answer while not actually clarifying anything.
As a CA, even a hint of malfeasance should require in depth transparent answers. Not this legal BS peddling.
So you think other CAs would field these questions better?
Because from what I read, I could see a decent chunk of them getting tossed out at the end of the star chamber as well.
And then we'd be left with a more centralized system with a few large players.
If corporate structure, ownership, and governance is important (it is!), then there should be standard processes, not ad hoc lines of interrogation whenever a CA happens to be noticed.
> And then we'd be left with a more centralized system with a few large players.
The CA system is already designed like a centralized system where the operators (CAs) have full privileges. Adding another CA just means adding another potentially malicious or vulnerable single point of failure that could bring down the whole system.
Don't fault a person for giving a comprehensive answer when you ask an important but complicated question.
If people knee-jerk from that, that's a listener problem, not an answerer problem.