The pathetic part of EVs is that they should have been issued by whatever the business register/regulator is in the country of issue.
Not some arbitrary group like D&B etc.
The US/other countries should have ensured that each state/registration area had an appropriate cert to sign with.
It should be part of my company's annual registration/reporting expenses that they issue the appropriate certificate for "*.<mycompany>.<2LDs>.<gTLD>", signed by them (and by the TLD root cert of the nation of registration).
Companies probably prefer to use "apple.com" instead of "apple-computer-inc.co.ca.us". It's even worse if you want to use truly unique identifiers like ISIN, LEI, DUNS, or IBRN, as that means something closer to "US0378331005.com".
The point is that I (as an Australian) don't trust a private organization like D&B any more than any other organization.
Corporate existence is dependent on some form of government regulator granting the corporation existence.
If EVs are/were a good idea (debatable at best), then having those EVs issued by the same government regulator that allows corporates to use trademarks etc makes sense.
If "apple" is a trademark for computers, then Apple Computer Inc as the owner of that trademark should get an EV issued by the regulator of trademarks.
Of course, the URL should be apple.com.us or apple.tm.us.
The historical error was not requiring the US to move to 2LDs for it's com/org/net/gov/mil etc domains.
Note this is for corporate entities, none of which exist outside regulatory environments.
Not some arbitrary group like D&B etc.
The US/other countries should have ensured that each state/registration area had an appropriate cert to sign with.
It should be part of my company's annual registration/reporting expenses that they issue the appropriate certificate for "*.<mycompany>.<2LDs>.<gTLD>", signed by them (and by the TLD root cert of the nation of registration).