RE: [legalxml-enotary] Continued discussion

["Gilliam, Charles" <Charles.Gilliam@CONTENTGUARD.COM>]

I do not see the two as mutually exclusive.

--Charles

-----Original Message-----
From: John Messing [mailto:jmessing@law-on-line.com]
Sent: Saturday, January 25, 2003 23:48 PM
To: legalxml-enotary@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: [legalxml-enotary] Continued discussion


I want to thank Eric for the minutes. It occurs to me upon rereading the minutes that the two views which were expressed during the call are perhaps not so much at odds with each other as I first believed. Even if we deal only with the use case of eNotarization in the presence of a notary, a determination of the appropriate criteria for issuing a notarial digital id and the capture of this information as transaction meta-data is still necessary in order to memorialize the fact that the required security procedures were followed in the first place. It could be a disaster if a notary's certificate were actually issued to an imposter. In-presence notarization would under this hypothesis add nothing to transaction security. It would detract from it.

Perhaps this observation will enable us to work on a single project having both components which were discussed during the call without having actually to choose between eNotarization in the presence or outside the presence of a notary. I would appreciate any feedback on this observation.

John Messing


----------------------------------------------------------------
To subscribe or unsubscribe from this elist use the subscription
manager: <http://lists.oasis-open.org/ob/adm.pl>