Outdated, refer to [http://svn.cacert.org/CAcert/PolicyOrganisationAssurance.html OAP].

This is a translation of PolicyDrafts/OrganisationAssuranceGerman

/!\ DRAFT in Progress ...

It is made by using babelfish by a non-native-english-speaker - so it is _not_ good english. Native speakers, who would like to correct it, are welcome on board.

[Hi. I'm SteveHolden, a native English speaker. I'm also a director of the Python Software Foundation, and would like to say I'm happy to see you using MoinMoin. One important decision is whether to treat European English and American English as two separate languages :-)]. The Board have asked for help, so this is my way of supporting them.

See PolicyDrafts/OrganisationAssuranceGerman for updates and/or finish this translation.

Concept for CAcert Organisation Assurance:

TableOfContents(1)

CAcert Organisation Assurer (COA) driven Organisation Assurance (OA)

Unfortunately this COA method is useless in the USA or Canada: It would cost less to go to a commercial CA & buy a certificate than to go to a lawyer to be certified. State governments issue valid corporations a "Letter of good standing" (something similar is done is Canada) which is the proper way to handle this in North America, besides it costs less than one tenth the cost of a paying lawyer (the lawyer would have to order the same government letter, then charge an extra $200-500 for his/her time). --Lance Haverkamp, Colorado, USA

Perhaps here (if not somewhere else) a brief note about the kind of organi{z,s}ations that might want to seek assurance, and why they might do so. SH

   1/ * providing a proof of final legal training/study (eg. lawyer, Rechtspfleger, Clerk, Greffier) and
   OR
   2/ * a proof of a completed juridical degree or training (eg. fully qualified lawyer, officer of justice)  and

   * being already a CAcert Assurer with 150 points 

How about Individuals who assure organisations should normally be an accepted member of the legal profession in their country of practice. SH

 * CAcert Organisation Assurer should assure organisations only from the countries, whose right system they were trained and/or whose right system they studied.
 OR
 * The Cacert organisation assurer should only be appointed if he/she is trained or graduated on the appropriate country legal system/ground and is knowledgeable for this.

How about Requests for assurance can only be undertaken for organisations able to prove that the request has been properly authorized by an executive decision according to applicable constitutional and legal requirements (This is also a bit long-winded. Board motions are acceptable, a telephone call from the Chief Accountant is not. Do examples help?) SH.

This all seems to be trying to say what the assurer should accept as legal proof of corporate identity. Perhaps it would be easier to suggest that assurers must be prepared to defend their acceptance of a proof of identity in a court of law. That way the variations in jurisdiction need not affect the CPS SH

Trusted Third Parties (TTP) driven Organisation Assurance

This is a situation where again the acceptable authority might vary from place to place, so we need to avoid local considerations somehow. SH

Organisation Assurance Main Features

Consequences of the changes in the life of the assured Organisation

How about If the assured organisation ceases to exist CAcert may at its discretionn immediately add any certificates issued to the assured organisation to its Certificate Revocation List (CRL). Transfer of an assured organisational identity to some other individual or organisation will be made at CAcert's discretion only after the receipt of proof of legal title to the assured identity. Basically I'm trying to say that mergers and takeovers are acceptable, arbitrary changes aren't. But we also need to say who decides, a question I have not addressed as I was not a party to the discussion. SH

I suspect we should also add CategoryCertificationPracticesStatement and add this page to that category. SH

[OrganisationRegister]