MHonArc v2.5.0b2 -->
legalxml-sc message
[Date Prev]
| [Thread Prev]
| [Thread Next]
| [Date Next]
--
[Date Index]
| [Thread Index]
| [List Home]
Subject: RE: [legalxml-sc] Today's Meeting materials
From: "Winters, Roger" <>
To: "John Messing" <>
Date: Wed, 14 Jun 2006 08:49:54 -0700
Hello,
I want to note that the name of OASIS is "Organization for the
Advancement of Structured Information Standards." I, too, have used the
word "Systems" in the last position, but that is incorrect. See
http://www.oasis-open.org/who/.
What I took as the gist of the letter is that it is an exhortation from
a group that is working on e-Notarization standards for court and legal
documents to the Secretaries of State urging that, in endorsing a method
of signing that they understand (PKI), they should not inadvertently
exclude other methods that exist now or that will emerge in the future.
I presently don't have a problem with a LegalXML entity making this
comment, if it is merely input invited pursuant to a public meeting, but
I'm not sure it should be the Steering Committee that makes the comment.
The chair/co-chairs of the eNotarization TC would, I think, be
appropriate communicators, saying essentially that they're exploring
other things that are believed to be as good or better than the PKI
approach to e-Signatures.
The letter might convey a stronger sense of "we're on the same side as
you, trying to find methods for e-Notarization that we can recommend to
our constituencies." Would it be wiser to emphasize the criteria that
must be met to make a given methodology/technology acceptable for
notarization purposes? Then they might say they believe PKI meets those
criteria today, but other approaches may also do so, now or in the
future.
I hope these comments are helpful.
Roger Winters
Program and Project Manager
and
Continuing Legal Education (CLE) Coordinator
King County Department of Judicial Administration
516 Third Avenue, E-609 MS: KCC-JA-0609
Seattle, Washington 98104
V: (206) 296-7838 F: (206) 296-0906
