Entrust mis-issues a certificate, Refuses To Follow CA/B Rules

> The mistake is a simple one to miss. The CA/B forum rule changes have accidentally lead to an inconsistency between the rules for Domain Validation (DV) TLS certificates, and Extended Validation (EV) certificates.

> Despite this mistake in the language of the BRs, the current requirements are still valid, and should still be respected.

"Woops, we made a rule change that causes them to be inconsistent, but they are still valid, and you are bad for continuing as you were"

Why isn't CA/B focusing on fixing the inconsistent rule versus trying to berate certificate issuers?

One thousand words on Entrust acting "maliciously" without respect for the (inconsistent) rules, and not a single word on how CA/B will rectify the rules, or indeed if. Just this brushed off acknowledgement, "well, they did accidentally make a rule change that caused inconsistencies".

Ever since the browsers decided that self signed certs were not good enough, I've considered the entire cert ecosystem to be a sham.