Policy-Discussion

[Ian G <iang AT cacert.org>]

On 27/03/2010 12:04, Daniel Black wrote:
> On Saturday 27 March 2010 11:54:20 Ian G wrote:
> > On 27/03/2010 11:45, Mark Lipscombe wrote:
> > > On 3/27/2010 11:41 AM, Ernestine wrote:
> > > > Didn't you think, that this paragraph should be formulated more
> > > > clear?
> > >
> > > I don't believe so. Whether or not there may be external factors or
> > > circumstances which prevent adherence to the policy doesn't mean the
> > >
> > >   policy is bad.
> > >
> > > In the example I gave, the policy as it stands would at least give a
> > >
> > >   moral obligation to explain why the policy couldn't be followed.
> >
> > The paragraph is drawn for the SP people.  It is basically telling them
> > that they have no powers to deal with external (legal) authority,
>
> right this is important. However arbitrators aren't a legal entitiy only the
> board as a presentative of the CAcert Inc is.


The Arbitrator will tell the various persons what to do.  No problem. 
They will do so on the full authority of the Community.  So they will be 
protected.


> Therefore I suggest that the board is the respondent to any legal authority.


That argument doesn't follow.  If it were so, it would mean that an 
Assurer, which is a person, would not be protected by the Arbitrator. 
And that would mean we could skip the entire Arbitration.



iang

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