[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Notary services requirements -- directions?


Richard,

I do understand that it is important to say exactly what means
"notary service" or "Notary service".

The first sentence of the abstract of the draft on "Notary Services requirements" is is too vague and thus does not provide an adequate explanation:

   Notary services are available today in a wide variety for paper based
   processes and documents.

Until we agree on a definition of "notary service" or "Notary service", we will have endless discussions.

The current text states:

   The functions of notaries
   include the attestation of documents and certification of their due
   execution, administering of oaths, witnessing affidavits and
   statutory declarations, certification of copy documents, noting and
   protesting of bills of exchange and the preparation of ships'
   protests.

This tells what the functions of notaries are, but still does not tell what notary services are or will be.

Later on the text says:

   A notary service should support and enable a human notary to fullfill
   his tasks with electronic documents as well as he already does with
   paper based documents and processes.

This is is closer but still does not tell what "notary services" are or will be.

Finally we have:

      Notary service: electronic service that supports a human notary
      to provide his/her services on electronic based processes and
      documents.

Is this definition sufficient ? I do not think so, since it is too broad and is not self-descriptive.

I understand that the "notaries services" that we will consider will only cover a *subset* of all the services a (human) Notary can perform, and we have not yet identified that subset of services and both the different or common characteristics of that subset.

So I ask the editor (or others) to propose a strawman definition that we can discuss.

Denis

Respectfully, I'll disagree with the determination that "notary service" is
an appropriate term. Here in the states, we went through a similar debate
when major CAs and others offered "digital notary services" in the wake of
passage of the Federal "E-Sign" Act. Personally, I think it had a
detrimental effect overall and all these "services" have since closed up
shop or been renamed, but that's just my opinion.

What Notaries do, in other words, has little to do with the certification
that a document is a true and original copy. Notaries witness signings, take
oaths and affirmations, and perform other in-person kinds of functions. I
guess I'm just sensitive to the appropriation of the word as an adjective.
Notary is a noun;-)

Regardless, if the majority feels it is appropriate then I'll oblige and say
no more.

Thanks,

Richard J. Hansberger
Director of eNotarization
National Notary Association
818-739-4027

-----Original Message-----
From: Tobias Gondrom [mailto:tobias@xxxxxxx] Sent: Friday, October 15, 2004 8:20 AM
To: Carl Wallace; Larry Masinter
Cc: ietf-ltans@xxxxxxx
Subject: RE: Notary services requirements -- directions?





From: Larry Masinter [mailto:LMM@xxxxxxx]
Sent: Tuesday, October 12, 2004 7:25 PM
Subject: RE: Notary services requirements -- directions?

Personally, I don't think we get into too much trouble using
the word 'Notary' in the title of the working group or even
in the title of a document here and there, as long as we're
clear -- after all, it's a term that's been used already in
the industry, and we're not particularly offering those
services for sale, in any case.

I don't mind the title either. 


I also agree. I can understand possible problems when a company sells a
notary service and is not allowed to, but this is neither the case with
the name of the WG or the Name of the requirements - basically I like to
call the things by the best fitting name if I find one at all... ;-)

So I see no problem calling a document requirements for notary services,
e.g.


I think the requirements document might note that the term
may have restricted use in some legal jurisdictions, and I
think it is reasonable to add some wording to that effect.



Full ACK, although I wouldn't add too much - there will always be one
place in the world where some wording might cause legal conflicts and it
is always up to the companies to resolve these conflicts when the
implement things and sell products to local customers.



Are time-stamping services associated with unsigned data out
of scope, because they're already covered?

I'm not sure what you mean out of scope. If you mean outside the

scope

for
new specification work, I think so.  If you mean outside the scope of

what

we may refer to as a notary service, I don't think so. Timestamping

seems

like a fundamental component.  We've explicitly included support for
unsigned data in the archive discussion and since those have so far

been

discussed pretty much solely in terms timestamp solutions, I think

this is

in scope (if already covered elsewhere).


Are combined archive-and-certification services (which
archive data and also provide for the certification of the
data archived) out of scope?

I think this combination is very much in scope. It seems natural for

the

data certification service we define to be capable of verifying the
structures defined for long-term archive purposes.  For some purposes,
this
combination may be invest too much trust in a single entity.  For

other

purposes, it seems like the ideal pairing (e.g. a binding that

verified

the
evidence record upon data retrieval).



I also agree with Carl - this is a possible but not necessary
combination.

Tobias


------------------------------------------------------------------------

This email message and any files transmitted with it contain confidential information intended only for the person(s) to whom this email message is addressed. If you have received this email message in error, please notify the sender immediately.