Subject: notary service requirements: suggested replacement for use-case 3.3

From: "Andreas U. Schmidt" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 27 Sep 2004 12:31:08 +0200

All,

from the outset, I found the use-case 3.3 'certification of copy documents'
rather misleading. First, the creation of copies, which are to fully replace
the original seemed to me just a very special case of general document
transformations, which need not be restricted to simple format conversions.

Then the statement that 'transformation of one document format into another
can be achieved' was also doubtful. Given the complexity of some data 
formats
and the notorious 'what You see is what You sign' problem, I think that the
transformation of documents is a general process in which a notary 
service can
be at best a  helpful tool, and not a single instance which is 'able to 
attest that
one document contains the same information as another ... '

I therefore propose to change use case 3.3 as follows:

3.3 certification of transformed documents
If a party wants to transform a signed document into a
target document, a notary service can issue a signed transformation
seal asserting that a transformation has been correctly performed
and thereby ensuring the validity of the target document.
For this, the service needs to be provided with all necessary
information on original and target document, signatures and
transformation, and in some cases the application context.

The meaning of the term 'validity' of the target document
depends its desired application domain, an important example
being  a) its legal validity as a replacement of the original.
In this case, the goal of the transformation is that the
target document is held legally valid in all situations
in which the original was. Further examples: b) conversion
from a data format that has become obsolete (migration);
c) corrections and amendments in legal documents, e.g., contracts;
d) deletion of certain data within a document for reasons of
data protection or secrecy (e.g., patient names in medical
records that are to be processed by a third party).

In many cases, due to the complexity of real-world transformations,
the task of the notary service may consist solely in compiling and
applying the transfomration seal to the target document.

Date: Mon, 27 Sep 2004 12:31:08 +0200
From: "Andreas U. Schmidt" <[email-masked]>
Reply-To: [email-masked]
To: [email-masked]
Subject: notary service requirements: suggested replacement for use-case 3.3
Sender: [email-masked]

All,

from the outset, I found the use-case 3.3 'certification of copy documents'
rather misleading. First, the creation of copies, which are to fully replace
the original seemed to me just a very special case of general document
transformations, which need not be restricted to simple format conversions.

Then the statement that 'transformation of one document format into another
can be achieved' was also doubtful. Given the complexity of some data 
formats
and the notorious 'what You see is what You sign' problem, I think that the
transformation of documents is a general process in which a notary 
service can
be at best a  helpful tool, and not a single instance which is 'able to 
attest that
one document contains the same information as another ... '

I therefore propose to change use case 3.3 as follows:

3.3 certification of transformed documents
If a party wants to transform a signed document into a
target document, a notary service can issue a signed transformation
seal asserting that a transformation has been correctly performed
and thereby ensuring the validity of the target document.
For this, the service needs to be provided with all necessary
information on original and target document, signatures and
transformation, and in some cases the application context.

The meaning of the term 'validity' of the target document
depends its desired application domain, an important example
being  a) its legal validity as a replacement of the original.
In this case, the goal of the transformation is that the
target document is held legally valid in all situations
in which the original was. Further examples: b) conversion
from a data format that has become obsolete (migration);
c) corrections and amendments in legal documents, e.g., contracts;
d) deletion of certain data within a document for reasons of
data protection or secrecy (e.g., patient names in medical
records that are to be processed by a third party).

In many cases, due to the complexity of real-world transformations,
the task of the notary service may consist solely in compiling and
applying the transfomration seal to the target document.

Date: Thu, 23 Sep 2004 07:58:31 -0700
From: Arshad Noor <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Notary services requirements -- directions?
To: Richard Hansberger <[email-masked]>
Cc: "'Larry Masinter'" <[email-masked]>, "[email-masked]'" <[email-masked]>
Organization: StrongAuth, Inc.
Sender: [email-masked]

Richard,

Can you point me to specifc implementations of the "paperless
electronic notarizations" - especially in the US?

I'm interested in how this has been implemented, and am also
curious if the implementations have defined the detailed use-case
scenarios with the risk-assessments for current & anticipated
risks.

Thank you.

Arshad Noor
StrongAuth, Inc.

Richard Hansberger wrote:

>  The simple
> fact of the matter is that human Notaries in the states and abroad now
> perform paperless electronic notarizations that fulfill the requirements of
> notarial law, as well as offer time/date stamping services akin to what this
> group is attempting to do (mostly through dig sig technology). 

Content-class: urn:content-classes:message
Subject: WG LAST CALL: draft-ietf-ltans-reqs-02.txt
Date: Thu, 23 Sep 2004 09:34:59 +0200
From: "Tobias Gondrom" <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Cc: "Carl Wallace" <[email-masked]>
Sender: [email-masked]

Hello friends,

the first document of our working group is coming to a final state. 
I asked Carl and the authors of the document to integrate the input of
the last discussions inspired by Denis into the document so that we get
to a final version. From my feeling the discussion here on the
mailing-list has come to the time of conclusion about the requirements
for long-term archive. Many discussions and ideas have been presented.
For me it was very insightful and interesting to learn the different
views and requirements from all over the world. We took our time for all
the aspects, now I think we can move to a conclusion with this document
so that we can lead our discussions concerning the Notary Services
easier. I think that Carl, Ulrich and Ralf did a good job on this and
hope that you agree. 

So I start the WG LAST CALL for our first WG document:
"draft-ietf-ltans-reqs-02.txt"

I declare WG Last Call (period 2 weeks) terminating at 7th October 2004
12:00 EST.

Best regards

	Tobias
	Chair of LTANS

Ps.: Small remark: Soon after completion of this Last Call I prepare to
start the Last Call for the ERS document so that we can focus our work
fully on the notary services problems at the 61st IETF meeting in
November.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email-masked]
[mailto:[email-masked]]
> On Behalf Of [email-masked]
> Sent: Tuesday, September 21, 2004 9:39 PM
> To: [email-masked]
> Cc: [email-masked]
> Subject: I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-ltans-reqs-02.txt
> 
> A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts
> directories.
> This draft is a work item of the Long-Term Archive and Notary Services
> Working Group of the IETF.
> 
> 	Title		: Long term archive service requirements
> 	Author(s)	: C. Wallace, et al.
> 	Filename	: draft-ietf-ltans-reqs-02.txt
> 	Pages		: 17
> 	Date		: 2004-9-21
> 
> In many scenarios, users need to be able to ensure and prove the
> existence and integrity of data, especially digitally signed data, in
> a common and reproducible way over a long and possibly undetermined
> period of time.  This document specifies the technical requirements
> for a long-term archive service to support such scenarios.
> 
> A URL for this Internet-Draft is:
> http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-ltans-reqs-02.txt
> 
> To remove yourself from the I-D Announcement list, send a message to
> [email-masked] with the word unsubscribe in the body of
the
> message.
> You can also visit https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/I-D-announce
> to change your subscription settings.
> 
> 
> Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP. Login with the
> username
> "anonymous" and a password of your e-mail address. After logging in,
> type "cd internet-drafts" and then
> 	"get draft-ietf-ltans-reqs-02.txt".
> 
> A list of Internet-Drafts directories can be found in
> http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html
> or ftp://ftp.ietf.org/ietf/1shadow-sites.txt
> 
> 
> Internet-Drafts can also be obtained by e-mail.
> 
> Send a message to:
> 	[email-masked].
> In the body type:
> 	"FILE /internet-drafts/draft-ietf-ltans-reqs-02.txt".
> 
> NOTE:	The mail server at ietf.org can return the document in
> 	MIME-encoded form by using the "mpack" utility.  To use this
> 	feature, insert the command "ENCODING mime" before the "FILE"
> 	command.  To decode the response(s), you will need "munpack" or
> 	a MIME-compliant mail reader.  Different MIME-compliant mail
readers
> 	exhibit different behavior, especially when dealing with
> 	"multipart" MIME messages (i.e. documents which have been split
> 	up into multiple messages), so check your local documentation on
> 	how to manipulate these messages.
> 
> 
> Below is the data which will enable a MIME compliant mail reader
> implementation to automatically retrieve the ASCII version of the
> Internet-Draft.

From: Richard Hansberger <[email-masked]>
To: "'Larry Masinter'" <[email-masked]>, "[email-masked]'" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: RE: Notary services requirements -- directions?
Date: Wed, 22 Sep 2004 16:30:59 -0800
Sender: [email-masked]

----123456789-987654321-abcdefg
Content-Type: text/plain

Larry,

I am a member of the OASIS LegalXML group. I can introduce a liaison from
this group to the chair, John Messing, directly.

I would humbly suggest that you revise the abstract as below. The simple
fact of the matter is that human Notaries in the states and abroad now
perform paperless electronic notarizations that fulfill the requirements of
notarial law, as well as offer time/date stamping services akin to what this
group is attempting to do (mostly through dig sig technology). Human
Notaries simply provide other assurances that the "digital Notary services"
do not; however, I fully expect to embrace the work product of this group to
extend the work we do even further.

Proposed revised Abstract (IN CAPS):
    This document establishes the scope and requirements for protocol
development in the area of 'digital notary services': network services that
provide future assurances about current or past documents or events.  The
term 'notary service' is used by analogy with the wide range of services
offered by human notaries for ELECTRONIC OR PAPER-BASED processes. The
document discusses the historical context of notary services, defines terms,
includes use cases and scenarios, and establishes technical requirements for
network protocols for communication with network elements providing related
services.

Richard J. Hansberger
Director of eNotarization
National Notary Association
818-739-4027

-----Original Message-----
From: Larry Masinter [mailto:[email-masked]] 
Sent: Sunday, September 19, 2004 9:03 PM
To: [email-masked]
Subject: RE: RE: Notary services requirements -- directions?

I'm looking at the task of updating the Notary Services
Requirement document, and I'm still not sure about what
direction the working group wants to take.

Arshad Noor wrote:

> I would recommend that the WG first describe, specifically, 
> which aspects of the human notary processes are expected 
> to be automated through technology (through detailed use
> cases), and then identify the current & anticipated risks to 
> each step of the revised processes and the environment, 
> before embarking on defining solutions.  

I think the scope of "Digital Notary Services" includes
some processes that don't have an exact analogy with
human notary processes.

For example, mechanical time-stamping by tamper-resistant
devices isn't a process that is easily described as an
"aspect of the human notary processes". So while I agree
with Arshad's stepwise approach, the range of possibilities
is somewhat broader. I think we are looking at a range
of network services that provide future assurances about
current or past documents or events.

>From this point of view, we can look at the "human notary
processes" for inspiration, but not necessarily as the
driver of requirements.

Proposed revised Abstract:
     This document establishes the scope and requirements for
     protocol development in the area of 'digital notary services':
     network services that provide future assurances about
     current or past documents or events.  The term 'notary service'
     is used by analogy with the wide range of services offered
     by human notaries for paper-based processes.
     The document discusses the historical context of
     notary services, defines terms, includes use cases and scenarios,
     and establishes technical requirements for network protocols
     for communication with network elements providing
     related services.

We were hoping to get some information from the OASIS LegalXML
group... does anyone have any news on that, or on the liaison request?

Larry

----123456789-987654321-abcdefg
Content-Type: text/plain
Content-Disposition: inline

This email message and any files transmitted with it contain confidential information intended only for the person(s) to whom this email message is addressed.  If you have received this email message in error, please notify the sender immediately.

----123456789-987654321-abcdefg--

To: [email-masked]
Cc: [email-masked]
From: [email-masked]
Subject: I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-ltans-reqs-02.txt
Date: Tue, 21 Sep 2004 15:39:03 -0400
Sender: [email-masked]

--NextPart

A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories.
This draft is a work item of the Long-Term Archive and Notary Services Working Group of the IETF.

	Title		: Long term archive service requirements
	Author(s)	: C. Wallace, et al.
	Filename	: draft-ietf-ltans-reqs-02.txt
	Pages		: 17
	Date		: 2004-9-21
	
In many scenarios, users need to be able to ensure and prove the 
existence and integrity of data, especially digitally signed data, in
a common and reproducible way over a long and possibly undetermined 
period of time.  This document specifies the technical requirements 
for a long-term archive service to support such scenarios.

A URL for this Internet-Draft is:
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-ltans-reqs-02.txt

To remove yourself from the I-D Announcement list, send a message to 
[email-masked] with the word unsubscribe in the body of the message.  
You can also visit https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/I-D-announce 
to change your subscription settings.

Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP. Login with the username
"anonymous" and a password of your e-mail address. After logging in,
type "cd internet-drafts" and then
	"get draft-ietf-ltans-reqs-02.txt".

A list of Internet-Drafts directories can be found in
http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html 
or ftp://ftp.ietf.org/ietf/1shadow-sites.txt

Internet-Drafts can also be obtained by e-mail.

Send a message to:
	[email-masked].
In the body type:
	"FILE /internet-drafts/draft-ietf-ltans-reqs-02.txt".
	
NOTE:	The mail server at ietf.org can return the document in
	MIME-encoded form by using the "mpack" utility.  To use this
	feature, insert the command "ENCODING mime" before the "FILE"
	command.  To decode the response(s), you will need "munpack" or
	a MIME-compliant mail reader.  Different MIME-compliant mail readers
	exhibit different behavior, especially when dealing with
	"multipart" MIME messages (i.e. documents which have been split
	up into multiple messages), so check your local documentation on
	how to manipulate these messages.

Below is the data which will enable a MIME compliant mail reader
implementation to automatically retrieve the ASCII version of the
Internet-Draft.

--NextPart
Content-Type: Multipart/Alternative; Boundary="OtherAccess"

--OtherAccess
Content-Type: Message/External-body;
	access-type="mail-server";
	server="[email-masked]"

Content-Type: text/plain
Content-ID:	<[email-masked]>

ENCODING mime
FILE /internet-drafts/draft-ietf-ltans-reqs-02.txt

--OtherAccess
Content-Type: Message/External-body;
	name="draft-ietf-ltans-reqs-02.txt";
	site="ftp.ietf.org";
	access-type="anon-ftp";
	directory="internet-drafts"

Content-Type: text/plain
Content-ID:	<[email-masked]>

--OtherAccess--

--NextPart--

Date: Sun, 19 Sep 2004 22:02:38 -0700
From: Larry Masinter <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: RE: Notary services requirements -- directions?
To: [email-masked]
Sender: [email-masked]

I'm looking at the task of updating the Notary Services
Requirement document, and I'm still not sure about what
direction the working group wants to take.

Arshad Noor wrote:

> I would recommend that the WG first describe, specifically, 
> which aspects of the human notary processes are expected 
> to be automated through technology (through detailed use
> cases), and then identify the current & anticipated risks to 
> each step of the revised processes and the environment, 
> before embarking on defining solutions.  

I think the scope of "Digital Notary Services" includes
some processes that don't have an exact analogy with
human notary processes.

For example, mechanical time-stamping by tamper-resistant
devices isn't a process that is easily described as an
"aspect of the human notary processes". So while I agree
with Arshad's stepwise approach, the range of possibilities
is somewhat broader. I think we are looking at a range
of network services that provide future assurances about
current or past documents or events.

>From this point of view, we can look at the "human notary
processes" for inspiration, but not necessarily as the
driver of requirements.

Proposed revised Abstract:
     This document establishes the scope and requirements for
     protocol development in the area of 'digital notary services':
     network services that provide future assurances about
     current or past documents or events.  The term 'notary service'
     is used by analogy with the wide range of services offered
     by human notaries for paper-based processes.
     The document discusses the historical context of
     notary services, defines terms, includes use cases and scenarios,
     and establishes technical requirements for network protocols
     for communication with network elements providing
     related services.

We were hoping to get some information from the OASIS LegalXML
group... does anyone have any news on that, or on the liaison request?

Larry

Date: Thu, 16 Sep 2004 14:19:20 +0200
From: "Andreas U. Schmidt" <[email-masked]>
Reply-To: [email-masked]
To: [email-masked]
Subject: Use case administering of oaths
Sender: [email-masked]

In view of the information provided by Richard Hansberger and the
corresponding information that I obtained from German notaries public
and which is in full accordance to that, I would like to have the 
parenthesis

(maybe even virtually)

be replaced by

(note that many jurisdictions at present require the personal
presence of the person delivering the oath with the notary, thus
oaths cannot be delivered 'virtually')

Though I agree with Larry that long explanations of the duties
of human notaries, followed by a shrugging remark that they are
invalid for notary services are to be avoided, I still think this is
a singularly important clarification.

AUS

Date: Thu, 09 Sep 2004 10:23:35 -0400
From: Arshad Noor <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: RE: Notary services requirements -- directions?
To: [email-masked]
Sender: [email-masked]

In re-reading the Description of the Working Group for LTANS, 
I now sense that it has two very different objectives - one which
is reasonable and the other, which may be premature.

The goal of arriving at protocols, structures and mechanisms 
for archiving and validating digitally signed documents over very 
long periods is the reasonable goal, since it addresses purely 
technical issues.

The goal of having such technology replace existing legal 
practices, however small, without documenting all potential 
risks, is dangerous.  

I would recommend that the WG first describe, specifically, 
which aspects of the human notary processes are expected 
to be automated through technology (through detailed use
cases), and then identify the current & anticipated risks to 
each step of the revised processes and the environment, 
before embarking on defining solutions.  

Arshad Noor
StrongAuth, Inc.

----- Original Message -----
From: Santosh Chokhani <[email-masked]>
Date: Wednesday, September 8, 2004 10:36 pm
Subject: RE: Notary services requirements -- directions?

> 
> I thought that the electronic notary will replace some of the 
> human notary
> services.
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email-masked] [mailto:owner-ietf-
> [email-masked]]On Behalf Of Richard Hansberger
> Sent: Wednesday, September 08, 2004 9:21 PM
> To: 'Larry Masinter'; [email-masked]
> Subject: RE: Notary services requirements -- directions?
> 
> 
> Larry,
> 
> In answer to your first question, we've always understood the term 
> "NotaryService" to be a technology that Notaries could use, not a 
> technology that
> others can use in lieu of notarization. If that means the name of the
> service needs to change, I'll leave that decision in more capable 
> hands.
> In answer to your second question, I probably just gave more 
> informationthat is relevant to the work product at hand.
> 
> I guess the primary question would be: What is the purpose of a 
> "NotaryService"? Is it what I understand it to be (a technology 
> used by a Notary),
> or is it intended to be a technology that performs "notarization" 
> per se?
> 
> If I understand the answer, I'll filter out unnecessary information.
> 
> Thanks,
> Rich Hansberger
> Director of eNotarization
> National Notary Association
> [email-masked] 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Larry Masinter [mailto:[email-masked]] 
> Sent: Wednesday, September 08, 2004 1:37 PM
> To: 'Richard Hansberger'; [email-masked]
> Subject: Notary services requirements -- directions?
> 
> 
> > Many state laws mandate that Notaries may NOT notarize documents 
> with"blank
> > or incomplete" spaces. Notaries are expected to review documents
> carefully,
> > though not to interpret them for signers. In every case and in every
> state,
> > the signer MUST appear before the Notary. Physical presence of the
> > signer before the Notary is almost the entire premise of 
> notarization.
> This is interesting information, but I'm not sure how it would 
> affect the
> document on notary service requirements. Is it proposed that the 
> fact that
> "Notaries" do these services should affect what we are calling a 
> "NotaryService" in LTANS?
> 
> > Acknowledgments and jurats are only two types of notarial acts. 
> There> are
> at
> > least 7 others (off the top of my head). What is common to them 
> all is
> > a notarial certificate that contains wording indicating the act 
> > performed.
> By
> > far, however, acknowledgments and jurats comprise the bulk of what
> Notaries
> > do on a daily basis.
> > 
> > California actually does have provisions for electronic notarization
> > (we
> are
> > running pilots right now), and three other states do as well: 
> CO, AZ, 
> > PA.
> 
> I think that we can mainly hope to create a standard interface for 
> thoseacts that are feasible for "electronic notarization", and 
> that a review of
> the electronic notarization pilots would be a good place to start.
> 
> Personally, I would rather not have a long document explaining in 
> detailwhat real Notaries do, and then point out that most of those 
> things (like
> verifying physical identity and reading and understanding the document
> content) aren't in scope for LTANS.
> 
> Larry
> 
> 

From: "Santosh Chokhani" <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: Notary services requirements -- directions?
Date: Wed, 8 Sep 2004 22:36:44 -0400
Importance: Normal
Sender: [email-masked]

I thought that the electronic notary will replace some of the human notary
services.

-----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]]
On Behalf Of Richard Hansberger
Sent: Wednesday, September 08, 2004 9:21 PM
To: 'Larry Masinter'; [email-masked]
Subject: RE: Notary services requirements -- directions?

Larry,

In answer to your first question, we've always understood the term "Notary
Service" to be a technology that Notaries could use, not a technology that
others can use in lieu of notarization. If that means the name of the
service needs to change, I'll leave that decision in more capable hands.

In answer to your second question, I probably just gave more information
that is relevant to the work product at hand.

I guess the primary question would be: What is the purpose of a "Notary
Service"? Is it what I understand it to be (a technology used by a Notary),
or is it intended to be a technology that performs "notarization" per se?

If I understand the answer, I'll filter out unnecessary information.

Thanks,
Rich Hansberger
Director of eNotarization
National Notary Association
[email-masked] 

-----Original Message-----
From: Larry Masinter [mailto:[email-masked]] 
Sent: Wednesday, September 08, 2004 1:37 PM
To: 'Richard Hansberger'; [email-masked]
Subject: Notary services requirements -- directions?

> Many state laws mandate that Notaries may NOT notarize documents with
"blank
> or incomplete" spaces. Notaries are expected to review documents
carefully,
> though not to interpret them for signers. In every case and in every
state,
> the signer MUST appear before the Notary. Physical presence of the
> signer before the Notary is almost the entire premise of notarization.

This is interesting information, but I'm not sure how it would affect the
document on notary service requirements. Is it proposed that the fact that
"Notaries" do these services should affect what we are calling a "Notary
Service" in LTANS?

> Acknowledgments and jurats are only two types of notarial acts. There
> are
at
> least 7 others (off the top of my head). What is common to them all is
> a notarial certificate that contains wording indicating the act 
> performed.
By
> far, however, acknowledgments and jurats comprise the bulk of what
Notaries
> do on a daily basis.
> 
> California actually does have provisions for electronic notarization
> (we
are
> running pilots right now), and three other states do as well: CO, AZ, 
> PA.

I think that we can mainly hope to create a standard interface for those
acts that are feasible for "electronic notarization", and that a review of
the electronic notarization pilots would be a good place to start.

Personally, I would rather not have a long document explaining in detail
what real Notaries do, and then point out that most of those things (like
verifying physical identity and reading and understanding the document
content) aren't in scope for LTANS.

Larry

From: Richard Hansberger <[email-masked]>
To: "'Larry Masinter'" <[email-masked]>, [email-masked]
Subject: RE: Notary services requirements -- directions?
Date: Wed, 8 Sep 2004 17:21:16 -0800 
Sender: [email-masked]

----123456789-987654321-abcdefg
Content-Type: text/plain

Larry,

In answer to your first question, we've always understood the term "Notary
Service" to be a technology that Notaries could use, not a technology that
others can use in lieu of notarization. If that means the name of the
service needs to change, I'll leave that decision in more capable hands.

In answer to your second question, I probably just gave more information
that is relevant to the work product at hand.

I guess the primary question would be: What is the purpose of a "Notary
Service"? Is it what I understand it to be (a technology used by a Notary),
or is it intended to be a technology that performs "notarization" per se?

If I understand the answer, I'll filter out unnecessary information.

Thanks,
Rich Hansberger
Director of eNotarization
National Notary Association
[email-masked] 

-----Original Message-----
From: Larry Masinter [mailto:[email-masked]] 
Sent: Wednesday, September 08, 2004 1:37 PM
To: 'Richard Hansberger'; [email-masked]
Subject: Notary services requirements -- directions?

> Many state laws mandate that Notaries may NOT notarize documents with
"blank
> or incomplete" spaces. Notaries are expected to review documents
carefully,
> though not to interpret them for signers. In every case and in every
state,
> the signer MUST appear before the Notary. Physical presence of the signer
> before the Notary is almost the entire premise of notarization.

This is interesting information, but I'm not sure how it would
affect the document on notary service requirements. Is it proposed
that the fact that "Notaries" do these services should affect
what we are calling a "Notary Service" in LTANS?

> Acknowledgments and jurats are only two types of notarial acts. There are
at
> least 7 others (off the top of my head). What is common to them all is a
> notarial certificate that contains wording indicating the act performed.
By
> far, however, acknowledgments and jurats comprise the bulk of what
Notaries
> do on a daily basis.
> 
> California actually does have provisions for electronic notarization (we
are
> running pilots right now), and three other states do as well: 
> CO, AZ, PA.

I think that we can mainly hope to create a standard interface for
those acts that are feasible for "electronic notarization", and that
a review of the electronic notarization pilots would be a good place
to start.

Personally, I would rather not have a long document explaining in
detail what real Notaries do, and then point out that most of those
things (like verifying physical identity and reading and understanding
the document content) aren't in scope for LTANS.

Larry
----123456789-987654321-abcdefg
Content-Type: text/plain
Content-Disposition: inline

This email message and any files transmitted with it contain confidential information intended only for the person(s) to whom this email message is addressed.  If you have received this email message in error, please notify the sender immediately.

----123456789-987654321-abcdefg--

Date: Wed, 08 Sep 2004 13:37:26 -0700
From: Larry Masinter <[email-masked]>
Subject: Notary services requirements -- directions?
To: "'Richard Hansberger'" <[email-masked]>, [email-masked]
Sender: [email-masked]

> Many state laws mandate that Notaries may NOT notarize documents with
"blank
> or incomplete" spaces. Notaries are expected to review documents
carefully,
> though not to interpret them for signers. In every case and in every
state,
> the signer MUST appear before the Notary. Physical presence of the signer
> before the Notary is almost the entire premise of notarization.

This is interesting information, but I'm not sure how it would
affect the document on notary service requirements. Is it proposed
that the fact that "Notaries" do these services should affect
what we are calling a "Notary Service" in LTANS?

> Acknowledgments and jurats are only two types of notarial acts. There are
at
> least 7 others (off the top of my head). What is common to them all is a
> notarial certificate that contains wording indicating the act performed.
By
> far, however, acknowledgments and jurats comprise the bulk of what
Notaries
> do on a daily basis.
> 
> California actually does have provisions for electronic notarization (we
are
> running pilots right now), and three other states do as well: 
> CO, AZ, PA.

I think that we can mainly hope to create a standard interface for
those acts that are feasible for "electronic notarization", and that
a review of the electronic notarization pilots would be a good place
to start.

Personally, I would rather not have a long document explaining in
detail what real Notaries do, and then point out that most of those
things (like verifying physical identity and reading and understanding
the document content) aren't in scope for LTANS.

Larry

Date: Wed, 08 Sep 2004 13:30:22 -0700
From: Larry Masinter <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: Notary services: Additional use-cases
To: "'Thomas Kunz'" <[email-masked]>, [email-masked]
Sender: [email-masked]

> Rectification of false statements:
> 
> One service can be the rectification, the supplementation, or the
> cancellation of some parts of the original document on demand of the
> document's owner.
> In a similar use-case the service can obliterate confidential parts
> (e.g. names of involved persons) in copy documents in order to publish
> it.
> Both use-cases can be understood as special kinds of transformations.
> In particular in the first use-case the service has to document the
> rectifications.

I'm not sure I understand this suggestion... is this something
that some notaries perform in some jurisdictions?

I know there are some general categories of document processing
services that are performed by different organizations, but I
don't know where the working group wants to draw the boundary.

Date: Wed, 08 Sep 2004 10:40:47 +0200
From: Thomas Kunz <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: Notary services: Additional use-cases
Sender: [email-masked]

This is a cryptographically signed message in MIME format.

--------------ms020108060202080203030402
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit

Hi,

in addition to the use-cases already described in the notary services
requirements, we would like to present some further use-cases.

Rectification of false statements:

One service can be the rectification, the supplementation, or the
cancellation of some parts of the original document on demand of the
document's owner.
In a similar use-case the service can obliterate confidential parts
(e.g. names of involved persons) in copy documents in order to publish
it.
Both use-cases can be understood as special kinds of transformations.
In particular in the first use-case the service has to document the
rectifications.

Best regards,

Thomas

------------------------------------------------------------
Dipl. Inf. Thomas Kunz
Fraunhofer - Institut für Sichere Telekooperation (FhG-SIT)
Dolivostrasse 15
D-64293 Darmstadt (Germany)
Tel: +49-6151-869-60204
------------------------------------------------------------
e-mail: [email-masked]

http://www.sit.fraunhofer.de
------------------------------------------------------------

--------------ms020108060202080203030402
Content-Type: application/x-pkcs7-signature; name="smime.p7s"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="smime.p7s"
Content-Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature

--------------ms020108060202080203030402--