Policy-Discussion

[Benny Baumann <benbe AT cacert.org>]

Hi Benedikt,

Am 27.05.2014 23:43, schrieb Benedikt Heintel:
>> - 2.5 (private key disclosure),
> I would let it as it is:
>       2.5.3 does not make sense here, since it is about security and not
> sharing. Sharing is denied in 2.3.5. which no-one opposed.
>       2.5.4 is tricky, I would let it with arbitration to decide when 
> necessary.
What about giving a general hint in the CCA by including 2.5.4 and
having arbitration decide on the specifica if conflicts arise?
>
>> - 3.3 (termination of CCA),
> As proposed: put it in a separate / underlying policy. This policy needs
> to be created asap until then, Arb is responsible for Termination
>
>> - 4.1 (CAcert Inc. contracts with other parties)
> As proposed: Drop it (and renumber the following ;) )
>
Regards,
BenBE.

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