Policy-Discussion

[Ian G <iang AT cacert.org>]

Hi Alexander,


On 20/01/2010 13:36, Alexander Prinsier wrote:
> The Assurance Policy [1] currently is very unclear about whether or not
> it is allowed to assure a name which is not in any government issued
> photo-ID, but which is a very common country variation.


Part of the unclarity here is that there is no one name, there is no one 
evidence, and there isn't even one country.

In order to deal with this unclarity, what we have is these things:

  * the judgement of the Assurer -- the handbook,
  * the ability to write sub-policies to deal with exceptions, etc,
  * the Arbitrator who can rule on any question.


With these degrees of freedom, we don't have to be exact.

> Citing sections 2.1 and 2.2 of the AP:
>
> 2.1:
> The Name should be recorded as written in a government-issued photo
> identity document (ID).


Right.  That's a "should" in that this is the standard that we follow, 
but there are possibilities for other things.


> 2.2:
> In order to handle the contradictions in the above general standard, a
> Member may record multiple Names or multiple variations of a Name in her
> CAcert online Account. Examples of variations include married names,
> variations of initials of first or middle names, abbreviations of a
> first name, *different language or country variations*, and
> transliterations of characters in a name.
>
> I'd like to effectively remove the "different language or country
> variations", because it's much too open,


That's not a good interpretation.  The sentence isn't a prescription, 
it's an example.  So it is not a backdoor, it describes what the authors 
were thinking of as acceptable for variations.

Also, the above entire statement simply gives the user the ability to 
enter her many names.  It doesn't "permit" random variations to be 
assured.  That's up to the Assurer.

If you like, this whole section does include some uncertainty, but that 
doesn't mean the Assurer can act uncertainly.  The Assurer has to back 
the decision with Handbook, rulings, etc.


> but still allow a backdoor to
> handle the technical issues. I would like to see that all names have to
> be on government issued ID, which is currently not the case.


Well, that's not really possible :)  There are entire countries where 
they don't have government-issued ID on a mass scale.  In those 
countries we have to invent something different.

Perhaps a more "rule-based" way to look at it is our principle of 
no-discrimination:  we should not deny people because their government 
doesn't follow the Napoleonic model.

In the anglo world it is still the case that you are not required to 
have any form of government-issued identification.  Life there is moving 
somewhat strongly in the european identity-centric direction, but it is 
still the case that the major Id document in many countries (like USA) 
is a driving licence, and that is not necessary if you don't drive ...



> Therefore I'd like to call for a *vote and supporting discussion*:
>
> RESOLVED, that section 2.2 of the AP is to be amended with the following:
>
> "Except for different names due to marital status, and except for
> exclusion of middle names, the deviation from section 2.1 should be for
> technical reasons only."
>
> Vote Aye if you want the AP to be clear about what is allowed and what
> is not, and specifically require a match with government issued ID.
>
> Vote Naye if you prefer to leave this an open question and allow names
> which are not in government issued ID.


Naye.

iang


> My vote is Aye.
>
> [1] http://www.cacert.org/policy/AssurancePolicy.php

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