RE: [legalxml-enotary] [FWD: FW: NASS re S. 2083 Interstate Recognition of Notarization Act]

[John Messing <jmessing@law-on-line.com>]

I think the solution for the S. 2083 situation may be very easy. It
could just simply be to  have the cryptographic signatures include the
notary certificate information. I.e, the signature covers those
elements' values so that they cannot be changed without tampering being
cryptographically evident.

With regard to authentication, which was covered in the other email,
both the symmetric and the proxy signature profiles require some kind of
authentication of the signer to get to the signing key, so it might not
be too much of a leap to include some kind of plumbing or direction to
suggest or provide extensions for the notary authentication as notary
piece.

two cents worth.

> -------- Original Message --------
> Subject: RE: [legalxml-enotary] [FWD: FW: NASS re S. 2083 Interstate
> Recognition of Notarization Act]
> From: "Mark Ladd" <mark.ladd@addison-one.com>
> Date: Wed, April 23, 2008 9:02 am
> To: "'John Messing'" <jmessing@law-on-line.com>,
> <legalxml-enotary@lists.oasis-open.org>, "'Arshad Noor'"
> <arshad.noor@strongauth.com>
> 
> 
> My initial reaction is:
> 1.	I have no problem with scheduling a limited amount of discussion of
> this topic on the TC agenda.  
> 2.	Seeing as this is only a proposal at this point, I caution making
> any alterations to our work based on its content.
> 3.	Noting the folks who are opposed to this concept, I wonder what the
> ABA's perspective is.  (Do either John M or David Ewan have any insight
> here?)
> 
> $0.02
> 
> Mark Ladd
> Addison/One, LLC
> 262-498-0850
>  
> mark.ladd@addison-one.com
>  
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: John Messing [mailto:jmessing@law-on-line.com] 
> Sent: Monday, April 21, 2008 10:27 AM
> To: legalxml-enotary@lists.oasis-open.org; Arshad Noor
> Subject: [legalxml-enotary] [FWD: FW: NASS re S. 2083 Interstate Recognition
> of Notarization Act]
> 
> I am forwarding this communication to the TC because I think in
> connection with the April 30 deadline we should consider whether the
> consultant's deliverable does already meet the proposed legal
> requirements of the bill, can easily be made to do so, or should not be
> made compliant with the bill, as among the issues to be discussed by the
> TC to vote upon at the next meeting.
> 
> 
> > ________________________________
> > 
> > From: Feist, Mary B. [mailto:mfeist@nd.gov] 
> > Sent: Friday, April 18, 2008 5:41 PM
> > To: notaryadministrators@list.state.ak.us
> > Subject: FW: NASS re S. 2083 Interstate Recognition of Notarization Act
> > Importance: High
> > 
> >  
> > 
> > I am forwarding this e-mail on behalf of the North Dakota Secretary of
> > State.  
> > 
> >  
> > 
> > From: Jaeger, Al A. 
> > Sent: Friday, April 18, 2008 4:31 PM
> > To: Feist, Mary B.
> > Cc: Silrum, Jim
> > Subject: NASS re S. 2083 Interstate Recognition of Notarization Act
> > Importance: High
> > 
> >  
> > 
> > Mary,  While they cannot participate as committee members in the
> > conference call, I think your NASS NPA members should be made aware of
> > what this United States Senator is attempting to do.  If not all, at the
> > very least, the NPA Executive Committee should know about it.  Al J
> > 
> >  
> > 
> > ________________________________
> > 
> > From: Reynolds, Leslie [mailto:reynolds@sso.org] 
> > Sent: Friday, April 18, 2008 4:03 PM
> > To: Secretaries of State
> > Cc: rbecker@sso.org; nass@sso.org; kay.stimson@verizon.net
> > Subject: NASS Business Services Alert: Scheduling Conference Call for
> > NASS Business Services Committee re Sen. Carper may be ready to act on
> > his S. 2083 Interstate Recognition of Notarization Act
> > Importance: High
> > 
> > Dear NASS Business Services Committee Member:
> > 
> >  
> > 
> > We learned earlier this week that Sen. Carper is considering moving
> > forward with S.2083 the Interstate Recognition of Notarizations Act of
> > 2007.  This legislation has a companion bill that passed in the House
> > last summer (see email below).
> > 
> >  
> > 
> > At our 2007 summer conference, we asked NPA (our Notary Public
> > Administrators Section) to analyze the bill and send us their comments
> > for our review at the 2008 Winter Conference.  At  the winter conference
> > during the Business Services Committee meeting, both NPA and the
> > National Notary Association (NNA) gave us their analysis of the
> > legislation - NPA opposes and NNA supports.  I also have a letter from
> > NCCUSL (National Conference of Commissioners on Uniform State Law) in
> > opposition to the legislation.  All of their analysis and letters are
> > attached.
> > 
> >  
> > 
> > By chance, I recently asked Rachel to put together a side-by-side of the
> > analysis from NPA and NNA.  She has done so and I have attached her
> > analysis/summary.  It will be very useful when discussing this issue.
> > At the Business Services Committee in February, it was decided that the
> > committee would address this issue of this legislation post conference
> > with a conference call to discuss after people had time to review the
> > analysis and consult with their notaries staff.
> > 
> >  
> > 
> > Now that Sen. Carper is considering moving this legislation NASS
> > Business Services Committee chair Sec. Mark Hammond (SC) and vice chair
> > Sec. Matt Dunlap of ME would like to hold a conference call.
> > 
> >  
> > 
> > The call will be held Thursday, April 24, 2008 3pm-4pm Eastern Time.
> > 
> > Dial-in information: 916-558-7514
> > 
> > Passcode:  239340#
> > 
> >  
> > 
> > Thanks so much.
> > 
> >  
> > 
> >  
> > 
> > Leslie D. Reynolds
> > 
> > Executive Director
> > 
> > National Association of Secretaries of State
> > 
> > 444 N. Capitol Street, N.W.  Suite 401
> > 
> > Washington, DC  20001
> > 
> > 202-624-3525
> > 
> > 202-624-3527 fax
> > 
> > From: Leslie Reynolds [mailto:reynolds@sso.org] 
> > Sent: Wednesday, September 26, 2007 3:04 PM
> > To: NASS Secretaries of State ; NASS Members
> > Cc: Rachel Becker (rbecker@sso.org); Kay Stimson
> > (kay.stimson@verizon.net); Kay Stimson - NASS (nass@sso.org)
> > Subject: NASS Business Services Update: H.R. 1979 now has companion bill
> > in Senate -S.2083 Interstate Recognition of Notarization Act of 2007
> > Importance: High
> > 
> >  
> > 
> > Good Afternoon:
> > 
> >  
> > 
> > Back in July, prior to our summer conference, I sent out an email that
> > the House had passed (under a suspension of the rules) H.R. 1979 The
> > Interstate Recognition of Notarizations Act of 2007.  The legislation
> > was received by the Senate on July 11, 2007 and referred to the Senate
> > Judiciary Committee.  
> > 
> >  
> > 
> > We briefly discussed the legislation at the NASS Summer conference.  At
> > the time, there was no companion legislation (or sponsor) in the Senate
> > for the House bill.  The Business Services Committee asked that the
> > Notary Public Administrators (NPA) Section of NASS review the
> > legislation and provide their input to the Secretaries.  NPA said they
> > will provide their input prior to the NASS 2008 Winter Conference.
> > 
> >  
> > 
> > I checked in with Senate Judiciary earlier this month when they returned
> > from the August recess to see if this issue was on their radar screen.
> > They said they did not have any planned and quite frankly didn't seem
> > all that familiar with the subject matter.
> > 
> >  
> > 
> > This week, Sen. Carper (D-DE) and Sen. Sununu (R-NH) introduced
> > companion legislation to H.R. 1979.  It is S. 2083 and I have attached a
> > copy with this email.
> > 
> >  
> > 
> > Senate Judiciary still doesn't have this on a hearing schedule, but
> > because it passed out of the House under a suspension of the rules, it
> > could potentially go to the Senate floor and pass under a UC (unanimous
> > consent.)
> > 
> >  
> > 
> > I did receive a call yesterday from the DC rep office for National
> > Conference of Commissioners on Uniform State Laws (NCCUSL).  They asked
> > if we had heard any concerns or comments from the states on this.  Their
> > members are concerned with some definition language found in the federal
> > legislation that is incompatible with uniform law developed.  They were
> > going to be sending some letters up to the Senate on the issue.
> > 
> >  
> > 
> > We will continue to track this issue and if NPA has the ability to
> > provide comments quickly, we will forward them out to the Business
> > Services Committee for their review.
> > 
> >  
> > 
> > In the meantime, please review the legislation and if you have concerns,
> > please let your Senators know.
> > 
> >  
> > 
> > Thanks so much.
> > 
> >  
> > 
> > Leslie D. Reynolds
> > 
> > Executive Director
> > 
> > National Association of Secretaries of State
> > 
> > 444 N. Capitol Street, N.W.  Suite 401
> > 
> > Washington, DC  20001
> > 
> > 202-624-3525
> > 
> > 202-624-3527 fax