e-conveyancing

[Pete Chown]

David Swarbrick wrote:

> It seems to me that the consultation and ECA2000 seem to see the move from
> paper docs to electronic docs and signatures as a mere alteration of the way
> the document is held, plus some nuisance making complications with regard to
> signatures.

The existence of a document is important for audit.  For example I
look after several domain names.  Some are .uk names with the SKYGATE
tag.  If I want to reconfigure these I have to generate a PGP-signed
message.  Others are held through an ICANN registrar.  Changes to
these are authenticated using a password sent over an SSL connection.

Both of these are "secure" in a naïve sense, assuming I picked a good
password.  But the difference is that Nominet can keep the PGP message
on file, so I cannot subsequently claim not to have authorised the
change (unless I claim that my key was stolen, but that is another
matter).

The same is true for transfers of land.  It is essential that there be
a document which can be kept around authorising the change.

(BTW, I wasn't sure I understood the original post, so I'm sorry if
this wasn't the point you were making.)

-- 
Pete