Policy-Discussion

[Mark Lipscombe <mark AT cacert.org>]

On 3/27/2010 12:04 PM, Daniel Black wrote:
> right this is important. However arbitrators aren't a legal entitiy only the
> board as a presentative of the CAcert Inc is.
>
> Therefore I suggest that the board is the respondent to any legal authority.

I'm not sure it's possible or even desirable to do that.

Our organisation is entirely volunteer and spread out across the world. 
 Legal process could, in theory, be served on any random CAcert 
community member for something that they may have knowledge of or access to.

Every person is a legal entity, just the same way that the association 
is.  They can sue, be sued, and be legally compelled to produce things 
that they have access to.

Usual practice when looking for someone to name on a subpoena is to pick 
people that are in the same jurisdiction as you, as it makes it easier 
to compel responsiveness.  This could mean that someone who is under the 
Security Policy could be compelled personally simply because of 
jurisdictional convenience.

We cannot dictate through our policies who must respond to a legal 
process.  Only the body that originated that process or some body that 
oversees it (like a court) can do that.  The person subpoenaed would be 
ultimately responsible for compliance or otherwise, but by involving the 
arbitrator the goal is that any action is documented and conducted as 
much in accordance with our policies as possible.

One amendment to the policy that I would very much support is a 
requirement that each person in the chain in a situation like this (the 
served party, the arbitrator, etc) should have a positive obligation to 
inform the board the moment they become aware.

The reason for this is that the board is the group of people who have 
the best chance of mounting or assisting in any necessary legal challenge.

Regards,
Mark