Policy-Discussion

[Alex Robertson <alex-uk AT cacert.org>]

4.1 is not a problem

3.3 is OK with the policy solution *provided* that a policy is "in place" - I have issues and concerns if it is left undefined - including that it may well be problematic with various countries legislation on unfair contracts (many countries require it to be clear how a contract may be terminated.) As a first pass, why not (at least for the time being) define the termination policy as "Only an arbitrator may terminate this agreement" and return to it later.

2.5a discussions also focussed in on sharing of accounts - with a fairly even split between "should not" (and making the consequences clear) and "must not"! NB Account <> Keys.

2.5b Various countries - certainly including UK and US (and I think AU) have legislation in place that can enforce surrender of keys allegedly for anti-organised crime and anti-terrorism reasons in their legislation. Given this, I'd prefer not to add such a clause, although I could "live with it under protest". If such a clause is put in place, I'd suggest that this perhaps needs to be considered, and that direction be given to clarify what action a member of the community should take it it did. I also think we would be on "dodgy ground" if such legislation applies to NSW-AU as we take that as our "governing law"!

Regards

Alex.

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