RE: [dss] Clarification on scope please - What is DSS claiming to be in relation to legally binding signatures to people for Non Repudiation

["Nick Pope" <pope@secstan.com>]

Steve,

Do you mean legally binding, in as much a hand written signature on a paper
document is legally binding, or non-repudiable?

You seem to imply the two are the same.  From the many discussions that have
gone I don't think that they are.

Nick

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Gray Steve [mailto:steve.gray@upu.int]
> Sent: 09 July 2003 19:18
> To: dss@lists.oasis-open.org
> Subject: [dss] Clarification on scope please - What is DSS claiming to
> be in relation to legally binding signatures to people for Non
> Repudiation
>
>
> Dear Colleagues
>
> I am seeking general feedback and opinions in relation to the issue of
> Non-Repudiation (and yes, technically everything can be repudiated)
>
> The Posts, through the development of the EPM are addressing
> requirements so
> that digital signatures can replace handwritten signatures so that legal
> documents can remain in electronic form. This is not just a legal
> issue. It
> is also a business risk issue. For example, my use case describing the Non
> Disclosure Agreement describes an end-to-end process of a legal electronic
> document being created.  The NDA could easily be a contract worth millions
> of dollars and therefore significant business risk.
>
> Our objective is to define standards that support the concept of legally
> binding Non-Repudiation services using digital signatures for electronic
> documents, transactions, etc.
>
> This objective is based on strong market validation involving governments,
> business, software vendors, etc.  But we must address more than just pure
> technical issues. We must also be making a strong statement about
> the legal
> value of an electronic document or message that is digitally signed, by
> combining information about Who, What When, Why and the strength of the
> process in gathering this information.   A strong chain of trust mitigates
> the business risks.
>
> Basically we need standards with Non-Repudiation in scope, but if
> the DSS is
> focused on too low a level it may be too generic and therefore weaken the
> perception of Non-Repudiation.
>
> So my question to the TC ;
>
> - Is Non-Repudiation clearly within the scope of DSS as a formal User
> requirement
>
> Perhaps John Messing could also comment from a legal perspective
> in relation
> to the eNotarisation use case and the Legal XML TC as to if/how/where you
> think legally binding Non Repudiation belongs for use cases involving
> significant business risk.
>
>
> Regards
>
>
> Steve Gray
>
>
>
>
> > _________________________________________________
> > Steve Gray
> > Program Manager, e-Business
> > Postal Technology Centre
> > International Bureau of the Universal Postal Union
> > Weltpoststrasse 4
> > 3000  Bern  15
> > Switzerland
> >
> > Tel:	+41 31 350 3116	(Direct)
> > Tel: 	+41 31 350 3111	(Switchboard)
> > Fax: 	+41 31 352 4323
> > e-mail: 	steve.gray@upu.int
> > Web:	http://postinfo.upu.org
> > 	http://www.upu.int
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
> You may leave a Technical Committee at any time by visiting
http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/dss/members/leave_workgroup.php