Gotta watch that reply-to-all "feature" of listserv, Dan. It'll getcha. :-). Cheers, RAH --- begin forwarded text Date: Fri, 16 Jul 1999 09:57:29 -0400 Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sender: Digital Signature discussion <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> From: Daniel Greenwood <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Follow up Comments: To: Digital Signature discussion <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Hello everyone, I just accidentally sent e-mail (spam) to the whole list that was intended only for Ben (hit the "reply" button and let it fly too quickly). In any case, general participants on this list might find parts of my prior e-mail interesting, and some of the points deserve a bit deeper discussion. Later today or early next week, Massachusetts will be publishing an official statement on federal legislation, but here are some previews One: Massachusetts has agreed (via testimony before the House and Senate) to the principles that Ben has stated in his last e-mail. (see http://www.civics.com/content/99-legis.htm for the testimony of Ray Campbell and myself). That is, we are on record supporting the UETA (general lifting of real and/or perceived legal barriers to use of electronic records, e-signatures and e-contracts) and for some limited federal preemption in the interim which disappears when a state enacts UETA or other conforming law. Two: The marked up version of S. 761 and the filed version of H.R. 1714 raise some legal issues that need to be dealt with. In particular, with 761 as marked up, the the general provisions dealing with writing and signing requirements are over-broad in scope and require either exceptions or the scope of the bill should be constricted back to the original version of 761 (dealing only with e-contracts and party autonomy to use any technology or business model for electronic transactional methods). Some of our concerns mirror those stated by NCCUSL, N.J. and others on and off this list (negotiable instruments - UCC Article 3, possibly commercial real estate conveyance, certain consumer protection laws, etc.). At this point in time, it appears that people interested in this legislation in D.C. prefer not to draw a long list of exceptions and would rather constrict the scope. (This could be achieved by deleting the newly added Sections 6(a)(1),(3) and (4) and also perhaps the attribution rules). Three: Industry supporters of 761 have also voiced a desire to see certain changes in 761 and there appears to be a window within which to operate before the bill is voted out of the Senate. However, even if 761 is voted out of the Senate as it stands out of mark up, provided certain exceptions to scope were included before Congress enacted the legislation (after conference committees, possible floor amendments etc.) then Massachusetts is on record as supporting this legislation. Four: Before hitting the "send" button on an e-mail client - ALWAYS check to see whether the "reply" function addressed the message to your intended recipient or to a huge list of luminaries. Thanks, Dan --- end forwarded text ----------------- Robert A. Hettinga <mailto: [EMAIL PROTECTED]> The Internet Bearer Underwriting Corporation <http://www.ibuc.com/> 44 Farquhar Street, Boston, MA 02131 USA "... however it may deserve respect for its usefulness and antiquity, [predicting the end of the world] has not been found agreeable to experience." -- Edward Gibbon, 'Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire'
