Policy-Discussion

[Ian G <iang AT cacert.org>]

Hi Morten,


On 19/01/2010 21:29, Morten Gulbrandsen wrote:

> _https://svn.cacert.org/CAcert/Policies/PolicyOnJuniorAssurersMembers.html_
> >
>
>
> I didn't spot it at the first, second or third time to read,
>
> but it should be clear,
>
> 1)
> that a Minur, or a junior or both cannot be hold responsible or
> accountable. e.g. sued for 1000 EUR.


I don't know what you mean by "cannot" ;-)

... the policy might be a bit subtle in this, because it wants to say 
"this is how you are held responsible" and not hand out get-out-of-jail 
cards.  Snippets:


 => the member is a Minor and requires the consent of the Parent.
 => A general situation in each country is that a Minor can only enter 
with Parental consent. In this case, the Assurer should confirm the 
consent of the Parent.
 => Arbitration with Juniors needs to take into account that a local 
court may find the CCA to be improperly imposed. ...
 => Technically, the consenting Parent is the one appearing in the 
Arbitration.


Perhaps it is better to view PoJAM as saying that the Party to the 
Agreement is held responsible ... and the view proposed is that both the 
Junior and Parent should be part of that.


> But breach of trust should be
> punished, but how? some Facebook pokes revoked?


No, Arbitration.


> 2)
> can they file a dispute? complain, alert arbitration?


Sure, why not?  Once they sit in front of our fearsome Arbitrators, 
they'll never file another frivolous suit again :)


> Online minors learn grasp and use the internet iPods mobile devices very
> good. It should be easy to read for juniors and minors.
>
> If the member is under 18 years of age,
> an additional button must be clicked during an Assurance,
>
> I like this, but it is the same papers to be filled?


Do you mean the CAP forms?  No, not explicitly required in the policy 
because there is already sufficient policy and legal statement in 
existance:  look at points 2.5 and 2.6 carefully.

So, Handbook has some work to do....


>      "<  18"  on the paper as pencil note will do.
>      "<  18"  as additional comments during issuing trust points may help.


As the requirement is already there, we will have to expand the 
knowledge of the Assurers on this point.  (However, the Assurance team 
might say, darn it, let's change the form as well....)


> I'm not complaining on the policy, but asking myself, or preparing
> myself what do I say, in order to explain the difference?


"The Assurance Handbook (AH) should expand .........."


> "They can receive up to 35 points, but never issue more than 10 points."


"Juniors are limited to issuing 10 points."  BTW, this 10 point thing 
already existed.  We just took it from prior undocumented practice. 
Like we're supposed to, in the first instance of documenting the practice.


> I think this is higly interesting and I feel the trust points starts to
> look like a new currency. Like Linden$ or webcent.  Issuing many trust
> point$ cannot harm the global economy. There will be no trust point
> bankruptcy or cacert bailout.


(cough :)


> I hope for feedback from 14-18 years, and even younger, if they feel
> they can use the system for their benefit.
>
> below 14 you can still gain trust points and use it to run your
> webserver sign email and code,


Yeah ... the notion that a baby can have an account is a little bit odd. 
 As long as the parent signs, they are the real account.



iang

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