Policy-Discussion

[Daniel Black <daniel AT cacert.org>]

On Saturday 27 March 2010 12:58:49 Ian G wrote:
> On 27/03/2010 12:16, Mark Lipscombe wrote:
> > On 3/27/2010 12:04 PM, Daniel Black wrote:

(cut - explanation)

> This could be added.  I like that.  Something like:
> 
> "All external inquiries of security import are filed as disputes and
> placed before the Arbitrator under DRP.  Board and security officers
> must be notified."

I'm not sure "security import" is clear enough

"security officers" is also undefined.
 
> > 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.
> 
> Yes, this was envisaged in approving the DRP.  The thing about external
> legal enquiries or demands is that the Arbitrator may need the
> assistance of legal help who is adept in the law of concern.  The Board
> is the group best able to find and pay for that help.

My concern was that the originating body may not acknowledge an arbitrators 
authority as a respondent nor the agreement preventing a community member to 
respond.  It doesn't quite have the legal stamp and an incorporated body does.

I see value in what is said here. I have no idea how it will work in 
practice. 
Until I see good reasons for or against this I'll withdrawal my objection to 
the arbitrator control and hope for the best when the time comes.

Thanks for your explanation.

-- 
Daniel Black
Ccert

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