Sentences with phrase «erms standard»

When 72.34 (2d) becomes an NSC, we can all oppose the production at discovery, and use of electronic records as admissible evidence, on the grounds that the ERMSs that produced them have not been certified as being in compliance with any authoritative ERMS standard.

Not exact matches

The Wrangler JK includes the highest level of safety features ever offered in the vehicle's history — like standard Electronic Stability Control (ESC) and Electronic Roll Mitigation (ERM)-- all designed to work in harmony to give occupants significant protection, whether on the road or trail.

Dodge Durango is an Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (IIHS) «Top Safety Pick,» and Special Service models offer customers the same 45 safety and security features, including standard Electronic Stability Control (ESC), electronic roll mitigation (ERM), Hill - start Assist and standard Trailer - sway Control (TSC) to enhance off - road and towing capabilities.

Sedona Canada does not analyze: (1) the meaning and consequences of the «system integrity concept» in the e-records provisions of the Evidence Acts — proof of «records integrity» requires proof of «records system integrity»; (2) the National Standard of Canada for e-records management, Electronic Records as Documentary Evidence CAN / CGSB -72.34-2005 («72.34»); and, (3) the need of the parties to exchange verifications of compliance, provided by records management experts, of their electronic records management systems (ERMS's) with the national sStandard of Canada for e-records management, Electronic Records as Documentary Evidence CAN / CGSB -72.34-2005 («72.34»); and, (3) the need of the parties to exchange verifications of compliance, provided by records management experts, of their electronic records management systems (ERMS's) with the national standardstandard.

Such review of the state of compliance of ERMS's with the national standards is necessary and should not be left to the trial.

Given the general lack of knowledge of ERMS technology by lawyers and judges, this «standards are not mandatory» comment and footnote 243 show that the drafters have not adequately accommodated the fact that electronic records technology and pre-electronic paper records technology are different technologies.

Two of the four components for such a certification process are already in place: (1) Canada has authoritative national standards for electronic records management, that are based upon well established international standards; and, (2) there is a well developed profession of experienced experts in ERMS technology.

And for an advantage in litigation, to raise an argument for opposing the admissibility of an opponent's records based upon a failure of standards - compliance, one's own ERMS has to be ready for a reciprocal attack.

Such standards are drafted by ERMS experts who service clients.

But it is they who have the necessary expertise to draft the standard — they being ERMS and legal experts for this 72.34 (2d) project.

For example, maintaining an ERMS in continuous compliance with a standard such as 72.34 is much less expensive than bringing it into compliance only after several years of compliance - neglect.

Therefore, rather than focusing on in - house ERMS's, laws and records management standards will have to focus on records management, and on the amount of control embedded in records management policies and procedures.

Two of the four records management components for such a certification process are already in place: (1) Canada has authoritative national standards for electronic records management, which are based upon well established international standards; and, (2) there is a well developed profession of experienced experts in ERMS technology.

Therefore, bringing an ERMS into compliance with the national standards, provides no information as to the continued existence, accessibility, and integrity of its records before compliance was achieved.

[i] The national standards are: (1) Electronic Records as Documentary Evidence CAN / CGSB -72.34-2005 («72.34»), published in 2005; and, (2) Microfilm and Electronic Images as Documentary Evidence CAN / CGSB -72.11-93 («72.11,» updated to 2000, but which has remained the ERMS industry standard for «imaging» procedures, i.e., the large industry for converting original paper records to electronic storage).

These defects are frequently found in the ERMS's of all organizations because: (1) there is no law of general application requiring ERMS's be maintained in compliance with any standard, such as Canada's national standards; (2) many organizations find that they can «get along just fine» using only their most recently made and received records, therefore they neglect ERMS maintenance; and, (3) ERMS's are brought into compliance with the national standards just for litigation purposes, therefore pre-existing records loses and record sources can not be known.

Re: lawyers practising in association with non-lawyers: - Absolutely necessary because: (1) technology will be the basis of almost all laws, therefore we will have to practice with other experts in that technology; (2) records management law will be a major area of practice because, records are the most frequently used form of evidence and e-records depend for everything on their e-records management systems (ERMSs), and they must be compliant with the National Standards of Canada for e-records management, which standards require legal opinions, and every significant change to an ERMS requires a legal opinion re ability to produce records able to satisfy laws as to e-discovery, admissibility of evidence, privacy & access to information, electronic commerce, tax laws, and compliance with National Standards of Canada for e-records management; (3) all new technologies require a legal framework, which means more work for lawyers; and, (4) otherwise, other professions and service providers who now provide «legal information,» will begin to provide «legal advice» and other services that only lawyers should be providing.

[6] A party who dishonestly deals with records or any part of the ERMS in which they are stored would not be in compliance with the «system integrity» concept, nor with the national standard.

The legal profession should be helping the world move to the day when having large ERMSs certified at least once per year, as being in compliance with the national standard or with international standards, is a routine part of e-records management, and whenever there is any significant change to an ERMS; e.g., mergers and acquisitions making necessary the melding of two ERMSs into one.

(I know these things from having worked with experts in ERMS technology for many years, and been a legal advisor in the drafting of the national standards, 72.34 and 72.11.)

Sedona Canada 2d, like its predecessor, shows a lack of understanding of the ERMS technology, i.e., no understanding of the need for standards to ensure the adequacy of electronic discovery, and its connection to proof of «systems integrity,» as is required by the electronic records provisions of the Evidence Acts.

That requires the application of the national standards of electronic records management by which to judge the state of ERMS management.

Experts in electronic records management apply more than 250 tests to certify the compliance of an ERMS with these standards.