Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

cacert-policy - Re: Board inquisition of Multi-member escrow

Subject: Policy-Discussion

List archive

Re: Board inquisition of Multi-member escrow


Chronological Thread 
  • From: Daniel Black <daniel AT cacert.org>
  • To: Andreas Bürki <abuerki AT cacert.org>, "cacert-board AT lists.cacert.org" <cacert-board AT lists.cacert.org>, "cacert-policy AT lists.cacert.org" <cacert-policy AT lists.cacert.org>, Lambert <lambert AT cacert.org>, cacert-root AT lists.cacert.org
  • Subject: Re: Board inquisition of Multi-member escrow
  • Date: Wed, 24 Mar 2010 11:57:11 +1100
  • Authentication-results: lists.cacert.org; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.i= AT cacert.org; dkim-asp=none
  • Organization: CAcert

On Wednesday 24 March 2010 11:47:35 you wrote:
> Thoughts at random:
> 
> *    Why multi-member approach is not more focused on organizations?
>         *    CAcert ORGA assured organizations are CAcert members as well
>         *    Organizations will probably "live" longer than an human member
>         *    Organizations have very often something to loose, at least
> their reputation.
>         *    Organizations have very often the physical infrastructure
> to protect root keys
> 
> And, yes of course, such organizations could be well known and serious
> universities, which are member of CAcert

In Principles
"Key Holder could be Organisation Assured community members who have a long 
term interest in the safety of our root key. "

http://wiki.cacert.org/Roots/EscrowAndRecovery/MultiMemberEscrow


its definitely under consideration for all the reasons you mentioned.
-- 
Daniel Black
CAcert

Attachment: smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature




Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.16.

Top of Page