Re: [atlarge-discuss] Thawte certificate... WoT

[Joop Teernstra <terastra@terabytz.co.nz>]

At 10:22 a.m. 28/04/2003, Sotiris Sotiropoulos wrote:

> > I agree. And I also think that an elected membership committee should 
> > have discretion in accepting whatever unique method of identification a 
> > member can present.
> I disagree.  I think we should settle on several alternatives but allow 
> for the possibility that the panel may have to make the odd discretionary 
> decision in extremely exceptional cases.
Sotiris,

"We should settle" is placing the cart before the horse.
If "we" is something other than elected representatives, we (all) have a 
problem. Especially if no election is allowed to proceed before "we" have 
settled on all the alternative verification methods.
Our current voters list does not appear to suffer from a significant number 
of fraudulent entries.
It is good enough for the moment.

After the members elect the needed officers, *they* can scrutinize the list 
further and challenge the doubtful entries.


> > With regards to Thawte, what surprises me is that no-one has brought up 
> > that this company is now 100% owned by Verisign.
> >
> > Did you not know that, Sotiris?
> Actually, I had heard that Verisign was interested in acquiring Thawte 
> some time ago, but not that they had done so...  Oh well, must have missed 
> the news.
>
> Does it matter?
I think it does.


-joop-



---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: atlarge-discuss-unsubscribe@lists.fitug.de
For additional commands, e-mail: atlarge-discuss-help@lists.fitug.de