Subject: Policy-Discussion
List archive
Re: [CAcert-Policy] CPS bugs. Vote please. Colosing date of votes21 October 12pm UTC
Chronological Thread
- From: Philipp Dunkel <p.dunkel AT cacert.org>
- To: Policy-Discussion <cacert-policy AT lists.cacert.org>
- Subject: Re: [CAcert-Policy] CPS bugs. Vote please. Colosing date of votes21 October 12pm UTC
- Date: Thu, 16 Oct 2008 14:31:45 +0200
- List-archive: <https://lists.cacert.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/cacert-policy>
- List-id: Policy-Discussion <cacert-policy.lists.cacert.org>
Right,
which is why I think it is time to define in in the OA-Policy that the organisation is the member and has all the duties of the member. (See previous E-Mail)
R,P
On 2008-10-16, at 14:09,
samj AT samj.net
wrote:
Employees can't, shouldn't and won't be held responsible for
[in]actions taken in re line of duty. Personal liability won't hold so
it's upto the company.
Sam on iPhone
On 10/16/08, Bernhard Froehlich
<ted AT convey.de>
wrote:
maurice Kellenaers schrieb:_______________________________________________
Philipp Dunkel wrote:
true, and that brings us back to the question: how can/does CAcert
On 2008-10-16, at 12:40, maurice Kellenaers wrote:
Well actually I think this is not an either or decision we have to
Philipp Dunkel wrote:
I opt for the second; check against dB. Small companies don't have 2
There are several ways this could be accomplished. The first would
be to rely on assurances. Someone suggested that if there were 2
assurers in HR they could assure all new employees. That would be
one way. But since the statement is verified and not assured
another way could be to check the CN against a paycheck database or
other such database available to the employer.
persons on HR (maybe not even 2 persons employed), maybe just the
o-admin as sole assurer.
make? Leave it to the organisation itself. What is good for one may
not be for the other. So why not just leave all options open?
verify the info.
The Org's admin is CAcert's agent to verify the information (just like
the other Assurers are). S/he is obliged to verify the informattion to a
certain standard because s/he is in a contract with CAcert (just like
the other Assurers are). If s/he is (grossly?) negligant s/he may face a
"fine" as a result from a dispute (just like the other Assurers are).
The only difference is that s/he not only verifies names but also
membership to the organisation and maybe org unit.
And I guess the term is "verify" and not "assure" because the
4-eyes-principle does not necessarily apply for the organisation info.
Or did I misunderstand something?
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
Have you passed the Assurer Challenge yet?
http://wiki.cacert.org/wiki/AssurerChallenge
CAcert-Policy mailing list
CAcert-Policy AT lists.cacert.org
https://lists.cacert.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cacert-policy
---
Philipp Dunkel
p.dunkel AT cacert.org
---
Your reality and mine may not entirely coincide. Therefore you may not rely on this message meaning what you believe it means.
---
Attachment:
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
- Re: [CAcert-Policy] CPS bugs. Vote please. Colosing date of votes21 October 12pm UTC, (continued)
- Re: [CAcert-Policy] CPS bugs. Vote please. Colosing date of votes21 October 12pm UTC, Sam Johnston, 10/20/2008
- Re: [CAcert-Policy] CPS bugs. Vote please. Colosing date of votes21 October 12pm UTC, maurice Kellenaers, 10/20/2008
- Re: [CAcert-Policy] CPS bugs. Vote please. Colosing date of votes21 October 12pm UTC, maurice Kellenaers, 10/16/2008
- Re: [CAcert-Policy] CPS bugs. Vote please. Colosing date of votes21 October 12pm UTC, Philipp Dunkel, 10/16/2008
- Re: [CAcert-Policy] CPS bugs. Vote please. Colosing date of votes21 October 12pm UTC, maurice Kellenaers, 10/16/2008
- Re: [CAcert-Policy] CPS bugs. Vote please. Colosing date of votes21 October 12pm UTC, Philipp Dunkel, 10/16/2008
- Re: [CAcert-Policy] CPS bugs. Vote please. Colosing date of votes21 October 12pm UTC, maurice Kellenaers, 10/16/2008
- Re: [CAcert-Policy] CPS bugs. Vote please. Colosing date of votes21 October 12pm UTC, Bernhard Froehlich, 10/16/2008
- Re: [CAcert-Policy] CPS bugs. Vote please. Colosing date of votes21 October 12pm UTC, Philipp Dunkel, 10/16/2008
- Re: [CAcert-Policy] CPS bugs. Vote please. Colosing date of votes21 October 12pm UTC, samj, 10/16/2008
- Re: [CAcert-Policy] CPS bugs. Vote please. Colosing date of votes21 October 12pm UTC, Philipp Dunkel, 10/16/2008
- Re: [CAcert-Policy] CPS bugs. Vote please. Colosing date of votes21 October 12pm UTC, maurice Kellenaers, 10/16/2008
- Re: [CAcert-Policy] CPS bugs. Vote please. Colosing date of votes21 October 12pm UTC, Philipp Dunkel, 10/16/2008
- Re: [CAcert-Policy] CPS bugs. Vote please. Colosing date of votes21 October 12pm UTC, Teus Hagen, 10/16/2008
- Re: [CAcert-Policy] CPS bugs. Vote please. Colosing date of votes21 October 12pm UTC, Teus Hagen, 10/16/2008
- Re: [CAcert-Policy] CPS bugs. Vote please. Colosing date of votes21 October 12pm UTC, maurice Kellenaers, 10/16/2008
- Re: [CAcert-Policy] CPS bugs. Vote please. Colosing date of votes21 October 12pm UTC, Teus Hagen, 10/16/2008
- Re: [CAcert-Policy] CPS bugs. Vote please. Colosing date of votes21 October 12pm UTC, Philipp Dunkel, 10/16/2008
- Re: [CAcert-Policy] CPS bugs. Vote please. Colosing date of votes21 October 12pm UTC, Philipp Dunkel, 10/16/2008
- Re: [CAcert-Policy] CPS bugs. Vote please. Colosing date of votes21 October 12pm UTC, Peter Williams, 10/16/2008
- Re: [CAcert-Policy] CPS bugs. Vote please. Colosing date of votes21 October 12pm UTC, IanG, 10/16/2008
Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.16.