e-conveyancing

[Ben Laurie]

Pete Chown wrote:
> 
> 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.)

I think you did misunderstand - the point is that there isn't a "the"
document, there are any number of independent copies of it. Indeed it is
essential that at least one copy is kept somewhere. At least, I think
that's the point.

Cheers,

Ben.

--
http://www.apache-ssl.org/ben.html

"There is no limit to what a man can do or how far he can go if he
doesn't mind who gets the credit." - Robert Woodruff

ApacheCon 2001! http://ApacheCon.com/