I'm very grateful for IdenTrust for having made that move. I just hope it won't hurt their business too much because of that.
So this is perhaps why there is no EV or OV differentiation. Who cares? Of what use is an EV cert, if no one even checks the name. Or further, knows if the bank (for example) uses that CA?
I think in such a context, 'green' and 'no-green' is just non-helpful to validate anything. Sadly, 1 person out of 1000? actually care about encryption, or even know what SSL is. Maybe only 1 out of 10000 know about EV.
Sometimes I just become sad, when I think of the lack of general knowledge about fairly important things.
So it would be prohibited to issue leaf certificates with a CN that's a human meaningful name like "Google" or "Hacker News" because that violates PKIX.
It doesn't matter anyway, the only enforcement that really matters for HTTPS is the mechanical enforcement by the user agent, because there are way too many HTTPS transactions for the human to realistically assess the certificate shown for each transaction and decide if it's OK.
Validating human-readable names, be that of individuals or corporations, would be opening a can of worms. Domain validation is already decidedly non-trivial.
It just should work for them, and the browser should enforce it. I think the tech world is biased to think consumers are more technically inclined due to the people they are around. I do not work in computer tech. No-one I work with, all of whom have some form of an engineering degree unrelated to computers, could tell you the difference or care less.
But maybe Mozilla & Google, were aware of it being used like that and thought that EV certs were not reliable enough to be used as a signal of trustworthiness?