Policy-Discussion

[Bernhard Froehlich <ted AT convey.de>]

Ian G wrote:
> [...]
>
> > Although I agree, that it is good to limit the assurers liability, to
> > protect them against ridiculous claims. 1000$ is the right magnitude, 
> > I guess.
> >
> > That's my view.
>
>
> So for internal disputes, people sign onto the
> CPS, and the limit of liability sticks.
>
> Then, for external disputes (grandma, criminal)
> who picks up the liability after $1000?
(being something of a nitpicker I want to point out that at least $2000 
are covered since at least two assurers should have to be involved in a 
false assurance)
> Is this CAcert?  Is this a defence fund?  Is
> this a general call to all members?  Do all
> the Assurers contribute $50 to a pot?  fund
> raising at events?

IMHO the best solution for this would be some kind of defence fund or 
insurance or something like that. That still leaves the problem of who 
fills the fund or pays the premium.

The classical solution would be to charge for the assurance. Maybe 
VeriSign charges too much, but possibly the right price for security is 
not free after all! But that line of thought would probably lead us into 
a completely different (and probably hot) discussion.

I'd prefer fund raising at events or an appeal for funds to the people 
getting assured (which still would imply changing the introduction on 
www.cacert.org).

Ted
;)

--
PGP Public Key Information
Download complete Key from http://www.convey.de/ted/tedkey_convey.asc
Key fingerprint = 31B0 E029 BCF9 6605 DAC1  B2E1 0CC8 70F4 7AFB 8D26

Attachment: smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature