[legalxml-enotary] Draft Minutes of the Meeting of October 17, 2002

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

Draft Minutes of the Meeting of October 17, 2002

 

1. The Chair called the meeting to order. Roll was taken. Upon motion, the TC unanimously approved the minutes of the First Meeting as amended by Eric Cohen. The Minutes as finalized are annexed.

 

2. The Chair reported that Tony Rutowski of VeriSign and its partners had decided to create a Legal Interception TC (formerly called CALEA) independently of eNotary because of the perception that a number of non-eNotary telecommunications carrier issues were outside the domain of eNotary and made it inappropriate to join the eNotary TC. However, an express statement of intent was given that eNotary was definitely going to be involved on those issues within its domain.

 

3. With regard to examples of eNotarization processes in use today, Ram Moskowitz of VeriSign agreed to provide information about a notarization service offered by his company to the TC for discussion.

 

4. Dr. Leff asked the question how and whether signed ebXML data might be treated as eNotarized.This led to a discussion about whether we should be bothering at all with a legal/technical standard for judging eNotarizations. The TC unanimously agreed that one central and core purpose of the TC is to create legal/technical qualifications for enotarized documents and processes, which may include as notarized data binaries and any and all MIME types.

5. Discussion was had about the TC's need for an archive of eNotarization academic and industrial sources. Dr. Leff volunteered to do a search from Index to Legal Periodicals and provide the results in a professional format to the TC.

6. Manoj reported that he had attempted in a paper to describe a way to perform the equivalent of a paper notarization using electronic technologies. He is to post his eNotary work for review by the group, with an express disclaimer by him of any pride of authorship that would stifle differing views, which he confirmed are welcomed.

 

7. The Chair is to contact Information Security Committee of the American Bar Association, which has its own eNotary subcommittee, for supplemental eNotary sources. The Chair also agreed to make a similar inquiry to Dan Greenwood of the TC,  either through the minutes of the meeting or private email.

 

8. The Chair reported that the Chair of the proposed DSS TC was contacted about a failure to list the TC in the list of related TC's as set forth in the call for participation, and was reminded about the inescapable relations between the two TC's. He indicated he would rectify the omission in the next draft of the Charter.

 

9. The Chair reported the need to name a member of the TC to serve on the LegalXML Steering Committee and promised to report the TC at the next meeting on this issue.

 

10. The next meeting is scheduled to take place telephonically on Monday, November 18, 2002 at 9:00 AM EST, 11:00 AM MST, and 4:00AM GMT. Ram Moskowitz volunteered to correct any mistakes in the time zones as reported by the Chair and to provide a conversion method to the Chair to avoid future embarassment. The same call-in number and access code as used in previous calls is anticipated, unless otherwise notified by the Chair.

 

Best regards to all,

 

John Messing

 

==============================================================================================

 

Appendix A

 

 

Final Minutes, 9/19/02 TC telephonic meeting

 

Present were:

 

Manoj Srivastava, manoj@infomosaic.com, Infomosaic Corporation   
Pieter Kasselman, pkasselman@baltimore.com, Baltimore Technologies
Daniel J. Greenwood, dang@mit.edu, Individual member
Rolly L. Chambers, rlchambers@justice.com, Individual member
Charles Gilliam, Charles.Gilliam@contentguard.com, ContentGuard.Inc.
John Messing, jmessing@law-on-line.com, Individual member
Roger Winters, Roger.Winters@metrokc.gov, Washington State Courts   
Dr. Laurence Leff, D-Leff@wiu.edu, individual member
Eric Cohen, eric.e.cohen@us.pwcglobal.com, individual member
Ram Austryjak Moskovitz, ram@verisign.com, VeriSign
Jerry Johnson, jerry.johnson@dir.state.tx.us, Texas Department of Information Resources

 

Absent were:

 

Krishna Sankar, ksankar@cisco.com, Cisco Systems
Patrick Crisfulla, patrick.crisfulla@renp.com, Lexis-Nexis
Robert Zuccherato, robert.zuccherato@entrust.com, Entrust Technologies

 

Decisions and discussions:

Roger and Manoj will be the TC joint editors and will coordinate their efforts.

 

Eric Cohen will be the note taker for TC meetings except when logistics make this impossible.

 

OASIS TC procedures and rules were reviewed. The TC Charter was unanimously adopted.

 

It was decided by consensus that an outreach effort will be undertaken to determine which other groups to liasion with,

including groups outside of OASIS and owners or holders of proprietary solutions that may have a relation to the goals as set

forth in the Charter.

 

A proposal to form a CALEA subgroup will be vetted by Manoj, RAM, John acting as a workgroup. On the one hand, concern was

expressed about CALEA overwhelming the work of the TC. On the other hand, it was felt that the CALEA effort might be useful

for the TC to examine and study as an example. Some members felt the work of CALEA was directly within the scope of the

Charter. An attempt will be made to present goals of a CALEA subgroup to the TC in the format of a TC Charter for review and

discussion.

 

In principle, a joint Face to Face meeting with one or more ABA committees is desirable and should be pursued.

 

With regard to the substantive work of the group, a discussion was had on an appropriate way to begin. One proposal was made

to prioritize and identify requirements. Another suggestion was made that the work should be content-centric rather

system-centric, meaning that different types of content might have different requirements and a systematic general approach

may be less desirable.

 

Unanimous consensus emerged for the rapid development of several illustrative narrative scenarios dealing with authentication

needs for further discussion, which could include evidentiary considerations, though it was agreed that the work of the TC

was much broader than just evidentiary rules for electronic documents in court cases.

 

Pieter, RAM, Rolly, Roger, Dr. Leff, Dan, John agreed to begin a discussion on the list of various scenarios to which the TC

could contribute as a committee of the whole.

 

Dan Greenwood reported on the National Notary Conference and a Model Notary Act, Art. III which he felt could also contribute

to our consideration of electronic notarizations involving human notaries.

 

The next telephonic meeting will be held on Oct. 17 @ 1 PM EDT.

 

Eric Cohen amendments 10/07/2002 10:54 PM:

 

To supplement the draft minutes, we also stated that we would try to bring together a list of Organizations with works that overlap digital signatures and documents or other related topics, such as W3 XML Signature and related topics (XML Canonicalization, et al) and XKMS; OASIS WS Security and related issues; MISMO's implementation of signatures; Organizations that are already in the business of providing overlapping/related (proprietary) solutions, such as www.eoriginal.com, www.surety.com and others; and Organizations that may be interested in the work, such as the one I represent, XBRL.org. 

We asked those who could identify potential participants to send those entries to you/(John).

 

End of Minutes.