Policy-Discussion

[Daniel Black <daniel AT cacert.org>]

On Sunday 28 March 2010 22:08:39 Ian G wrote:
> 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.
> 

key persons list notification is good. Even though most won't play a role in 
it its good to let them know legal things are going on and to watch out.

Even if this goes in the SM rather than SP.

> > 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.
 
The arbitrator is normally defined/certified by law, or occurs due to mutual 
agreement of both parties (which includes the external legal complainant).

In CAcert arbitrators being appointed based on internal policies and we're 
telling an external legal complainant that this is our "independent" process 
for doing stuff. I doubt our arbitrators will be seen to be independent.

> 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.

The level of expertises it more defined by the individuals legal experience 
than any particular role that CAcert has them in. I wouldn't be so hasty to 
pass collective judgement here.

> > 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.

I'll defer to those with more legal experience than me.

> 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".

absolutely.

-- 
Daniel Black
CAcert

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