Policy-Discussion

["Ernestine" <ernestine AT cacert.org>]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Mark Lipscombe 
> [mailto:mark AT cacert.org],
>  Sent: Saturday, March 27,
2010 2:17 AM
> 
> 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.

I'm not sure, if you can say every person is a legal entity. If somebody has
a claim, he could try to see it in this way, to go maybe the easier shorter
way.

 
> 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.

Yes, normally this way will be gone, if it will have success, will be an
other question, normally not as long the person didn't have done something
forbidden. And if the person have done something forbidden, cacert as whole
have anyway a problem, our system has failed. 
And in such a case CAcert Inc could not refuse the responsibility.



> 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.

I support too. At the moment the article didn't make this clear.

 
> 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.

Not only this, finally the people in the board has to take the
responsibility.

Ernie

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