Policy-Discussion

[Gary Lee Adams <gla AT iag.net>]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: RIPEMD160

====

Reference:

    Subject:  Re: [CAcert-TVerify]  suggested procedures
    Date:     Thu, 20 Oct 2005 00:01:46 +0200
    From:     Stephan Knauss 
<sknauss AT gmx.de>
    To:       
cacert-tverify AT lists.cacert.org

> The problem is to verify that the person is a notary and not just a 
> regular thawte member that has the same name that an existing thawte
> notary.

That's certainly a valid concern and a potential risk.

But while real, what's the possibility of it happening?  While I'm sure
others will disagree, I happen to think it's exceptionally low.

Since I don't know how we can eliminate such a risk without violating
Thawte's current policies and procedures (and I think that should be
avoided at all costs), I suggest we acknowledge the risk but choose to
ignore it.

I'd rather do that than scrap the tverify program which I believe is a
very good one and one that should be continued.

Regardless of what we decide, I hope we can make a decision on the
matter quickly and move on to other policy concerns.

- --

Ciao

Gary

   "Honest disagreement is often a good
    sign of progress." - Mahatma Gandhi

Timestamp: Wed 19 October 2005, 2130 EDT (USA)  UTC: --400

====
.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.2rc2 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using Fedora and Enigmail
Comment: OpenPGP keyID and URL in Message Headers

iD8DBQFDVvMWEHILFTa/Ou0RA3n7AKD1MuF6aDZxMydhDbWZqd40vCn9VQCfYA0R
1I9LUrhMaMUP2Qjb8YKOew4=
=z2ax
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----