Policy-Discussion

[<ulrich AT cacert.org>]

Hi Ian,

maybe samples helps here to enlighten what this means ...
is the Paypal thing an example ?



regards, uli   ;-)


-----Original Message-----
From: Ian G 
[mailto:iang AT cacert.org]
 
Sent: Sunday, March 28, 2010 1:09 PM
To: 
cacert-policy AT lists.cacert.org
Subject: Re: SP 9.3.2


On 27/03/2010 19:08, Daniel Black wrote:
> 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


By that I mean anything within SP's area.  It is the intent behind the 
title, Security Policy.


> "security officers" is also undefined.


Ah, well spotted.  By that I meant this:

    Board and Pecurity Policy team leaders must be notified.


(There was a concept of Security Officer once, but it didn't survive ... 
somehow I wrote that old concept out instead of today's.)

Another possibility is to notify the key persons list:

     All external inquiries of import to this policy
     are filed as disputes and placed before the
     Arbitrator under DRP.  Board and key persons list
     are to be notified immediately.



Just a suggestion........


>>> 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.


The stamp of an Arbitrator carries far more weight than the stamp of an 
incorporated body.  An Arbitrator is a forum at law, and is capable of 
replacing courts.  In contrast, an incorporated body is a person, and is 
capable of appearing before a court.

Also, we might not acknowledge the authority of the originating body. 
The only way to accept the authority of an orginating body is to do the 
due diligence on the order and the authority.  For that, our Arbitrators 
are expert.  Our Board is not.  Relatively speaking, of course.


> I see value in what is said here. I have no idea how it will work in 
> practice.


Right.  Certainly, how it works in the future is yet to be experienced. 
  It's a judgement call (of many) that putting it in the Arbitrator's 
hands will help us.  We could be very wrong.  But so far, nothing has 
turned up to suggest we are on the wrong track.

The alternative is to follow what others tell us.  Then we'll always 
lose.  Because others tell us what helps them, not us.  It's not 
personal .. I'd do the same if I was "others".


> 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.


OK!  iang

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