POA Network Participation Agreement


#1

Request for comments for NotaryCoin Participation Agreement.

The main ideas of the document is to provide basic rules of participating in the network and provide protection for both parties.

Please take a look at the draft of the agreement and comment in the Google Doc or here


#2

Can a Notary Public have relatives in the network who also has a notary license? Will that be an issue?

Are there any punishments for not participating in the network for some period of time? Like a time bomb of inactivity


#3

Only 2 issues, what is the reason for the “Compensation” section. Even though it is coins generated by mining, not notary, since there are rules about using notary license for earning income (like how much you can charge for given services), this could cause confusion, . Is there even a need to say it?

Part F: under Obligations: is there a way for notaries to guarantee they have not invested in an entity another participant, now or in the future, is affiliated with?


#4

Here is an updated agreement. Please let me know what do you think:

https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B70x0bQJPRz3YkQ0S3Q4N1YyMms

Changelog:

  • A change intended to clarify that services under the Agreement are not notarial services regulated as such.
  • A new provision permitting removal of Participants for failure to process transactions. Also, note that the Agreement already includes a termination provision under Section 5.
  • A new provision limiting Participant liability.
  • NotaryCoin changed to Oracles Network

#5

I have looked into it, attached my comments, and request for edits.

Overall it seems like a fair agreement.

I am not legal expert and if some fellow validators have access to one for review it would be great!

Also why I am cringing about being called notary:

‘‘Please note, a notary public only can use the notary public’s seal for
purposes described in the California Government Code and only can use the title “notary public”
to render notarial services. (California Government Code section 8207.) A notary public must
refuse to perform any notarial act that is not described in California law. For example, a notary
public is prohibited from using the official seal and title “notary public” either on documents that
are not described in California law or without the required notarial wording. (California
Government Code sections 8202, 8205 and 8207; California Civil Code section 1189).)
Doing either of these prohibited acts may cause the notary public’s commission to be revoked or
suspended or application denied.’’

Therefor I would rather be referred as a ‘‘validator’’. And it happens that validators are asked to pass and maintain the notary public registration process so that their identity is certified. However, their title is never used and services under the notary title are not performed.


#6

Melanie,

Thank you.

I agree:
-that in opening section notary should be changed to validator.
-that in Section 2 your clarifications be addressed

Further:

-Section 2b: “all reasonable measures” and “promptly” should be qualified/quantified further.

-Section 2c: At the moment, Validators run a script to create a Virtual Machine in the Cloud which runs a Validator node in the network … Moving forward there may be updates that need to be installed by the Validator via scripts/virtual machine interface(?), in this case missing update protocol ( how Validators notified ) and expected time frame of action for Validator to be within specs.

-Section 2e: Reiterate your point, too broad/restrictive.

-Section 8: Would like to be notified of any change to the Agreement before it takes effect and at least 15 days prior for material changes. Also, in what form will the notification occur, forums, email (?)


#7

Hi J,

I agree with your points.

I previously mentioned that I may have access to legal counsel however the legal plan that I signed in for is only accessible to me starting form January first.

Do we have within the Oracles community someone with a legal background to review this further? I’ll keep asking around otherwise.

Thank you,

Mel


#8

I’ll ask original creators of the document to come here and update/clarify.


Discussion around HF semantics/Validator node maintenance
#9

Hey Dear, as a legal advisor, we’ve review your comments, many thank you for them, they were very important. Also, we’ve prepare a feedback for you and tried to answer on you questions in a chronological order:

  1. Indeed, from a legal perspective it would be less risky to use term ‘‘validator’’ rather then “notary”. We would take it into account and we’re work closely on that issue with a local lawyers.

As for the question at the document you’ve attached, we have also answered it in a chronological order:

  1. If registration as an individual notary is terminated, you’re not authorized to act under such agreement anymore.

  2. Transaction validity mechanism described on our public web-page, in particular our WhitePaper.

  3. We’ve made some changes in the Agreement, and from now competitiveness is focus on the other products which is similar to Oracles network, not any kind of blockchain.

  4. Termination clause have nothing to do with the liquidity of tokens. It simply means, that if the agreement is terminated you would not earn any more with the network.


#10

Hey Dear, as a legal advisor, we’ve review your comments, thank you for them, so now, you can familiarise yourself with our answers on you questions which are listed in a chronological order:

  1. Indeed, from a legal perspective it would be less risky to use term ‘‘validator’’ rather then “notary”. We would take it into account and we’re work closely on that issue with a local lawyers.

Further:

  1. The terms “all reasonable measures” and “promptly” sometimes clarified in the agreements, but for a simplicity of the process we’ve decided to cut of a babble from our agreement as long as there is general understanding in law what does it mean.

  2. In case of update protocol and expected time frame of action for Validator to be within specs there is Miscellaneous section in the agreement, clause (g) which state, that: “Any notice or other communication given or made under this Agreement shall be and may be delivered to the other party by email at the email addresses provided.”. Means, we will communicate you and agree each particular situation additionally.

  3. We’ve made some changes in the Agreement, and from now competitiveness is focus on the other products which is similar to Oracles network, not any kind of blockchain.

  4. As prescribed in section “Notice” under this Agreement, notices shall be provided in writing or via any digital or electronic means of communications to the Participant, means it can also occur through forums, email etc.


#11

@MEM @jlegassic your thoughts and input please


#12

@AxonPartners

Can you share with us the latest pdf or give us a link to a google doc with the latest document with your consolidated changes for us to look?

Thanks

Mel


#13

I agree with @MEM with respect to full document to review.

Also, I would like to see voting participation requirements in the agreement, i.e. a Validator is expected to participate in at least 85% of Ballot proposals over some time period, say 1 year.

This is a direct response to a question asked when I presented at Silicon Valley Ethereum Meetup. I believe the question came from a STEEM community participant, where they have a piece of their network similar to POA where participates receive rewards for generating blocks but no longer participate in any governance activities and their system has no way to coerce their participation.


#14

Sure, sorry for our late reply, the latest google doc document is the following - link.


#15

Hey,

Current changes into the document you can find under the following link.

We will consider your request on voting participation requirements which should be specified in the agreement and get back to you as soon as possible.

Thanks


POA Network Announcement -- Sokol Testnet, Validator participation requirements