[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: RE: [dss] Clarification on scope please - What is DSS claiming to be in relation to legally binding signatures to people for Non Repudiation
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
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]