This document is deprecated. Please Refer to the Organisation Assurance Policy.

[http://www.cacert.org/policy/OrganisationAssurancePolicy.php Organisation Assurance Policy]

.

.

.

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.

[I'm LoyeYoung, a native of Texas, USA. Although Texans are often derided for their use of the language when speaking (especially if the person in question is or has ever been a President of the USA), we generally follow American English conventions when writing. I own [http://www.iycc.biz Isaac & Young Computer Company] in Laredo, Texas. I also graduated from The University of Texas School of Law in 1988 and practiced corporate and regulatory law for 8 years before going into technology, so I have a thought or three about the ideas expressed herein.]

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

LY: The standard as stated is sufficient, IMHO. It's not necessary for one to be a licensed member of the bar, and it's probably not even advisable for the Assurer to act in a lawyer capacity. In large corporate deals, each side will often ask for proof of the other's organizational status and good standing from the Secretary of State of the incorporating jurisdiction. In really big deals, each side will ask the other side's lawyer to opine. The legal opinions are expensive because the USA is the most litigious society on earth, and the lawyer will charge extra for the opinion to cover the additional perceived risk. The question also arises as to who is the lawyer's client, which presents its own vexing issues. In the instant case, all that is really needed is someone to ask the right questions, understand the plethora of types of legal entities, review the documentation, and know how to verify the documentation and information submitted. "Trained or graduated" seems like a good standard. Some will argue that a paralegal would have the requisite training, but my recommendation would be to stick to those who have graduated a recognized law school OR who have been licensed in the relevant jurisdiction. (A few jurisdictions (e.g., California) allow attorneys to be licensed without going to law school.)

 * 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.

LY: My suggestion follows:

Each applicant organisation shall provide current, authoritative, and documented evidence of: (i) the applicant organisation's formation, identity, and continued legal existance, and (ii) the organisational authority pursuant to which the application is made and the application signatory acts. 

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]


CategoryDeprecated