Policy-Discussion

[Bernhard Fröhlich <bernhard AT cacert.org>]

Alexander Prinsier schrieb:
> 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.
>
> 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).
>
> 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, 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.
>
> 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.
>
> My vote is Aye.
>   

I vote Naye for now.

The discussion should go first and then the voting should be done!

Having said this I'm not solidly against your idea, but for now I'm not 
sure if it makes sense define more details in the AP.
It's clearly stated in PracticeOnNames that your proposed rules should 
be the standard. And I'd prefer to leave it to Arbitration to allow some 
specific "name mapping", like Johannes -> Hans in germany. For me it is 
very hard to see if explicitly forbidding this for ever and everyone 
won't get us in troubles somehow.

If you absolutely want to add something to the AP, why not something 
like "Exceptions to 2.1 need to be approved by an Arbitration."? OK, I 
must admit this somehow sounds stupid... But maybe someone else has a 
better idea?

Ted
;)

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