Revisit High Risk language

[CBonnell]

On the 2025-05-29 validation-sc call, it discussed that the High Risk language in the BRs requires that such a process exist, but provides no further guidance.

It was discussed whether this is desirable, or if more prescriptive language be added, or the requirement removed entirely.

[github-actions]

This issue was created based on:

• TLS BR Version 2.1.5
• EVG Version 2.0.1

[aarongable]

Conclusion from discussion at the CABF F2F 65 in Toronto is that Trevoli Ponds-White will develop a ballot which:

• Deletes the definition of High Risk Certificate Request from the BRs
• Deletes the final two paragraphs of Section 4.2.1 (which reference that definition) from the BRs
• Deletes paragraph 10 of Section 4.9.1.1 of the BRs
• Makes additional changes to the EVGs (particularly sections 3.2.2.7.1.(2) and 3.2.2.12.1) to remove references to High Risk names there as well

[CBonnell]

This was mentioned on the 2026-04-02 call. ATS is still willing to propose a ballot.

[srdavidson]

See #678