[dss] Use cases and requirements input

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

I agree with Gregor that we should develop the use cases first, review them, and decide what to support. In this regard, I have two use cases which I am preparing to submit to the TC. The first involves electronic court filing, at least as it is emerging in the United States and to some degree in Australia. As the liasion to this group from the CourtFiling TC, I think it may be useful for the TC to consider this use case carefully. Not only does the model have importance in the court arena, but also wherever electronic filing is implemented between a government and its citizens.

Electronic court filing can be effectuated either directly from a user, who is usually an attorney, into the Court, or indirectly through infomediaries who are called Electronic Filing Service Providers (EFSP). An Electronic Filing Manager (EFM) is a focal point by which the receiving filing service collects the filings and parses the filing metadata for its internal processes. Where EFSP's are involved, they in turn forward the filing information to the Courts. As public budgets for electronic filing are slashed, the EFSP model has become more robust and attractive.

In one iteration of electronic filing presently in full production in the Arizona Court of Appeals, which uses the first, direct filing model, the Court's EFM also acts as a digital signature service and enables filers to digitally sign the filed briefs and motions using a proprietary method. It is my understanding that the judges are beginning to sign the orders and judgments by the same method. One purpose of the submission to the TC will be to have the architecture and method considered for adoption as part of the DSS standard. I am in the process of obtaining authorizations about the Arizona Court's system for consideration by the TC under the Oasis IPR rules and hope to be able to make the submission as soon as that is accomplished. Because the architecture and underpinnings are considerably different from that which has been submitted to date, I think that Gregor's advice to wait and see and not rush to a specification prematurely is prudent.

The second use case involves notarizations via a DSS. The Arizona Secretary of State's office has developed regulations that have not been implemented as yet pursuant to statutory authorizations which expressly provide for such enotarizations. As the liasion to this TC from the eNotary TC,  I think it it would be useful for this group to consider whether the model of the Arizona Secretary of State is appropriate and should be  included in the work of this TC as a basis for a digital signature service having a notarial component.

I am also in the process of obtaining authorizations from the Secretary of State's office to make the submission to the TC. Please be patient with the process.

John Messing
3900 E. Broadway Blvd., Suite 201
Tucson, AZ 85711
(520)547-7933 (v)
(520)547-7920 (f)
jmessing@law-on-line.com

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Gregor Karlinger" <gregor.karlinger@cio.gv.at>
To: "'Robert Zuccherato'" <robert.zuccherato@entrust.com>
Cc: "'DSS TC'" <dss@lists.oasis-open.org>
Sent: Monday, January 27, 2003 4:18 AM
Subject: RE: [dss] Use cases and requirements input


<snip> 
> Again, I think we should collect use cases in a first step. Let us 
> discuss and decide which are worth to support by our service protocols
> in a second step.
</snip>