Policy-Discussion

[Ian G <iang AT cacert.org>]

On 29/05/2014 01:46 am, Alex Robertson wrote:
>
> On 28/05/2014 19:40, Eva Stöwe wrote:
>> Dear Alex,
>>
>>> So what is wrong with my suggestion - it moves towards the framework
>>> you
>>> want and doesn't leave a gaping hole to fall into! I'm not against the
>>> idea of a separate policy or even a procedure about the matter, but
>>> I do
>>> want to know what I am agreeing to.
>> why?
>
> CCA is a not just a policy - it is a contract - hence a legal
> document. It would be regarded as not being good practice to refer to
> a non-existent addendum in such a document. If the intent is to leave
> it with the arbitrators until a policy is in place then say so. If
> there is another intent then say so. Just don't leave it open.
>
> At this point, I'd be perfectly happy for the new policy to define the
> triggers if that's where you want them and what the result of those
> triggers is to be.
>
> In addition, most "ongoing" contracts should have the exit conditions
> specified in whatever manner - currently it is that certain requests
> will effectively either create an arbitration case or will follow an
> earlier arbitrators ruling in order to terminate. Without the new
> policy being present there is a risk of CCA being declared void if it
> were challenged legally since the terms were not made clear to one of
> the parties
>
> It costs nothing to put a very short subsidiary policy in place that
> simply says that "only an arbitrator may terminate this agreement" and
> then return to it when ready.
>
> Note that I feel as strongly about this as you seem to about privacy.
>
> I am happy to discuss that subsidiary policy in due course, but since
> CCA is a legal document, I object strenuously to the idea of leaving
> it undefined.


+1


>> And as long as it is not defined - as so many other things are not
>> defined - it's back to arbitration - so we should be fast to put
>> something in place.
> Not necessarily true - this is a gross assumption to make in a legal
> document - Simply define that it does and it's resolved.


Indeed.

>> As for termination in case of death: Nobody has had any better idea. It
>> would at least give an idea where R/L/O may be put (even if I would
>> prefer to have something more. s - we even do not know the nationality
>> of our members.
> Agree in general - the issue I had was that there was (and still is!)
> no way that death can terminate the agreement other than as a 2.5.2
> violation. It is not even one of the current triggers for a
> termination process -

I'm not sure I understand the need for triggers.  The termination is at
the order of the Arbitrator.  So any list of triggers is a convenience,
as far as I can see.

As in, hypothetically, I can simply file dispute to request the
termination of your contract.  Presumably the Arbitrator will not agree
with this, and send me packing.  The point being that we could just as
easily add "Iang says so" to the list of triggers, and it makes no
difference, as long as the Arbitrator is the one who decides.

The point has been well made that we never find out that death has
happened;  but this is a fact of life/death, to use a phrase, and adding
a list or entry to the CCA changes that not at all.


> in practice I see no real option to the route Uli went down as far as
> R/L/O are concerned as this is currently a contract between an
> individual and CAcert Inc. Board did not like it at the time, and I
> suspect that they would be unhappy if this were used as the default
> but this is probably for another time.


Well, I think it is for now!  If the RLO for the time from death to CCA
termination and cleanup (certs revoked, etc) is not for here and now,
what is there to discuss?

PG cannot make the person notify us.  CAcert can't divine the person's
death.  All we can do is (a ) orderly shutdown of the account, (b )
terminate the CCA, and (c ) allocate the residual RLO to somewhere/somehow.

(as a side issue, I agree that the obvious target is CAcert Inc on
behalf of the community.)


[snip]


iang