To Arbitration Arbitrations - To Arbitration Training & Lessons
Back to Arbitration Team Meetings
Arbitration Team Meeting 2010-02-02 - Template
1 Preliminaries
- 1.1 Chair opens the Committee Meeting
1.2 Accept the Minutes of the last Arbitration Team Meeting
2 Businesses - Important Note: Acceptance of Businesses 48 Hours before beginning of Arbitration Team Meeting latest!
2.1 Is PracticeOnNames binding for arbitration? added by UlrichSchroeter
At last Meeting we discussed name issues in arbitration (read transcript or Minutes of last meeting). Only 3 of probably 10 arbitrators were online. So the concensus of 2 arbitrators doesn't reflect the overall practice. There are still arbitrators, which do not recognize the PracticeOnNames.
2.2 Board Member vs. Arbitration work added by UlrichSchroeter
After AGM-20100130 the discussion araises again: can be a Board Member also an Arbitrator?
In Board Meeting 2009-09-13 the Board decided with Board motion
m20090914.1 - Separation of Powers (Arbitration vs. Board-Membership)
a separation of powers. This seperation of powers doesn't include CM work. As this hadn't been discussed with the Arbitration team, this question now pops up, after 2 working Arbitrators now voted to Board commitee and are no longer available for Arbitration work. The good side: we've got Back PD as an arbitrator. As of the Backlog, the Arbitration work looses man power of at least one active Arbitrator. What we now can do is to rethinking the existing board motion, present the board a draft of a modified Separation of Powers motion, where Board members can continue with Arbitration cases, that hasn't any conflict of interest between Board membership and Arbitrion work.
- et cetera
3 Question Time - Important Note: Questions from CAcert.org Community Members can be added until beginning of Arbitration Team Meeting! As well questions can be asked at "Question Time", without added Question here
3.1 "Question One" added by YourName - Comment: Replace "Question One" by Your Question and add your Name
- et cetera
4 Closing
4.1 Confirm next Arbitration Team Meeting: Usually every 1st & 3rd Tuesday of the month, 20:00 CET (19 UTC).
- 4.2 Chair closes the Arbitration Team Meeting
- 4.3 Preparation of Minutes
Minutes - Arbitration Team Meeting 2010-02-02
- transcripts of each meeting will be published after a meeting under Arbitrations/Meetings/Transcripts with access permissions to Arbitration Team only
using of Nicknames or FirstnameLastname in Team meetings ?
- answered to use Nicknames as long as all knows the other nicknames
- no nicknames in the minutes
Topic 2.1: Is PracticeOnNames binding for arbitration?
PracticeOnNames relates on AH and AH relates on AP, AH is covered by AP 0.3
PracticeOnNames: started to document known country variations
AP is binding, AH + PracticeOnNames leading
ruling a case, I have to follow the path, AP, AH, PracticeOnNames
- a lot depends on what youwant to use the names for ... it is customary to put them in certs ... and conventional marketing has it that this is so that a user can "RELY" on that name
- This is where another discussion pops up: support for more names. Like: the account has the full names but your certificate can have the "normal, all day" name
- but this is rather rare ... it doesn't really happen, and it doesn't really happen enough to justify such an extraordinary amount of attention, which is why in AP there is a bit of a shift from the classical certs statement "you can RELY on the name" ... to something a bit more CAcert-centric
- which is that you can rely on the contents and rely on the person being a member
cert => certificate unique id => account => member
and Member => CCA => Arbitration
- so the additional feature of the policies is to say, you can RELY on the member, because of our Arbitration
- so the name in the cert is not that important, but via the unique id you should be able to get the official name?
- rare is to RELY on the name in any material sense ... the concept was built up on an expectation that people would need to know precisely and definately who they are talking to, better said, the name is an important element in a list of important elements
- included in that list is the fact that you can rely on the Member, regardless of her name
- But then the assurance has to be on the exact name. Once assured the member can use whatever name, right?
- so, for example, the system supports the possibility of useful reliance on a Member using a nym or nickname or a class 1 cert with no name
- from AP, the member can add multiple names if she has them, and get the names assured, sure.
so the thing about reliance on the Practice On Names is that as long as cert => member => Arbitration is strong ... we can afford to be a little flexible with the precise Name
- once assured according to ID docs, does the member have to use those names? Or just whatever name in the cert, as long as CAcert can trace it back to the official names?
of course, Arb also wants the correct name, so these two things are a bit like Yin & Yang
- relaxed in the assurance, or relaxed in the name in the cert?
- I would say the latter ... or, that's what I would have thought was the usefulness
- When CAcert would allow a split (account includes official names as in ID dox, cert can have any name) this issue would be solved right?
- the birdshack concept has multiple name fields, this is no prob to add multiple names from multiple id's
- correct, current system does not support multiple names
- the birdshack concept has multiple name fields, this is no prob to add multiple names from multiple id's
- I don't see a use in having a "relaxed Name" in the system, or a relaxed Assurance
I think what is an interesting question for the distant future is that I should be able to have a cert with <nickname> ... but that doesn't change the system record or Assurance over my Name as <fullname>
- It would solve the Dutch naming problem, but then we would have to ask our assurers to have their opinion about the "given name" that the users wants to have on his certificate. I think it is musch to complex to solve right now
- strong assurance allows us to have flexible names in certs, I think. I don't think relaxed assurance buys us anything though ... if that is the question
- i don't think we can really solve anything until a new system is developed
- Just a question for this group: would anyone object to "no limitations to the name in the cert", if the account would include the full name as written in the ID dox?
E.g., hypothetically, if I can get 25 Assurers to assure my name <nickname> for 2 points each as a nickname, that would get it up to 50 points ... or, maybe I have to use it for a year in all emails on 100 posts ... or maybe i have to declare it before an Arbitrator? don't know, an interesting debate for all I think
- at the moment nicknames can be assured by registering them as pseudonym
If someone knows you for a long time and knows you are known as <nickname>, He could assure the nickname stating the account containing the full name and that this person can be called ....
- then it becomes official and will be written into the id and passport
- don't think we can solve it here, so we have to put it aside for now
- I think we have to make a note/summary of this
- Am I right in stating that we all agree that the Policy is leading and binding?
- yes, policy is leading and binding. That is what we have policies for
and AH, PracticeOnNames are leading ... but not binding...
- We might have to go though all arbitrations on names, and see where the AH and practice have white spots?
I think, it doesn't make sense this way ... some cases I've just added to PracticeOnNames after arbitrations, if new cases comes along ... add it after arb
- Yes we have to. PON does not cover the practice in the netherlands and it limits the choice of someone with a double-name where he would like to silently drop one part of it ...
- the way it works in SP-SM-Practices is that the SM creates a Practices for a whole area ... so maybe AH would say something like "everything on Names is kicked out to PoN" ... but I guess the author of AH might like to keep some part of the Names in the AH for simplicity of Assurer training
- Summary:
- Policy (AP) is leading and binding.
and AH, PracticeOnNames are leading ... but not binding...
- topic 2.2 Board Member vs. Arbitration work
- The previous board decided that board and arbitrations don't mix, because board is escalation point if arbitration is wrong (in the eyes of one of the parties). And I agree with that (somewhat). but am thinking: I for instance have a few cases open, some of them we already have a ruling, wouldn't it be better to finish open cases if already past initialisation? And just not accept new cases? What is the opinion of the group?
- one idea about sabbatical is to not start any new cases, but finish the open cases
- I don't see an absolute necessity that board members should do no arbitrations. But if there will be an appeal against an arbitration of a board member it should be obvious that this arbitrator has no vote when it comes to a board decision
- OK, this point is right. But that has never happened until now. What if the arbitrator would just have to abstain if a case is really referred to board and should not take any cases where CAcert is an involved party.
- Why such a very strict idea? Why not just keep on working as an arbitrator, and when an escalation is called for, you ofcourse do not mix in that escalation as a bvoard member, but leave it to the othher board members to decide?
- i strongly agree that you should finish open cases, not hand them over
- Why finish open cases? If they are referred to board, then it is the board including the arbitrator who needs to handle the case.
- but in that case the involved arbitrator would step back from any decision
- Of course an arbitrator cannot have a vote on board if his case is escalated. In any case. So why care about board membership at all?
- in that case the board member arbitrator would have to abstain. However, probably it would be best if there is an experienced arbitrator in the board, so that when a case is escalated, at least someone in the board knows procedures
- name and dob cases aren'T such a problem with board conflict
- We now have three arbitrators on the board. So if a case is escalated, there are two left who can be on the board side.
- so finish the cases, but open no new cases ?
- Can I summarize as: continue, but don't take potentially controversial cases??
- Why no new cases? I would suggest to withdraw m20090914.1
- I would consider taking new cases is a matter of capacity. If someone can handle them why not?
- No new controversial cases sounds good to me.
- part II: CM work ... as CM work is moved into the Arb team .... CM work wasn't covered by the board motion, right?
- Also: only step in when too many cases open
- as long as m20090914.1 is in place, we have to find a solution ,-)
- correct. CM is not ruling, just supporting, so no conflict
- Some might want to reconsider m20090914.1, I'd just like to undestand your opinions
- so a propose a redifinition for m20090914.1: only in conflicting cases, other cases, not conflicting with board work can be handled ... but thats not in effect right now, so the proposal
- Well, I don't want to change too much in a hurry. I also like the idea of a split between board and arbitration, to make sure arbitration is independent of board
one way to solve both problems is to spend the time on recruiting new Arbitrators
maybe this is a theme I've played before - are arbitrators independant from the board? From individual mambers of the board yes, but they are selected and dismissed by the board. so the independance is somewhat limited ...
- short discussion about non-working arbitrators, not worked on a case in a long time
- using the term 'retire'
- I think the best thing is to get a committment up front that he will tell us when his situation changes ... so we can step in and help
- everyone goes through dry patches where they can't contribute... when we know about it we can act .. when we don't, action is vera hard
- one arbitrator informed us that he'll be unavailable for three weeks
- As long as we know it's not a problem. When people stop working without anyone knowing why it's an issue
- and thats why we've started the inactive arb procedure - report to DRO - and DRO starts an interview - if this doesn't solve the problem report to board
- which is something that the board will pick up on .. probably next meeting, not the one tonight
- Summary:
- concensus: finish open cases, not hand them over, in becoming a board member
- reconsidering board motion m20090914.1
- The previous board decided that board and arbitrations don't mix, because board is escalation point if arbitration is wrong (in the eyes of one of the parties). And I agree with that (somewhat). but am thinking: I for instance have a few cases open, some of them we already have a ruling, wouldn't it be better to finish open cases if already past initialisation? And just not accept new cases? What is the opinion of the group?
- Topic 4.1 - next meeting
- what about: 1. week Tuesday, 3trd week Wednesday ?
- I have no problem not beeing able to attend the discussion as long as i can follow it later offline. we still have the lists to hear the voices taht could not attend
- Wednesday is much better for me
- Wednesday is the only one which is worse than the others... But I can live with missing another session
- does not matter for me
- so I propose next meeting to be wednesday 17th ... same time 19 UTC, 20 CET
- what about: 1. week Tuesday, 3trd week Wednesday ?
Synopsis of Meeting Contents
- Text
Meeting Transcript
Inputs & Thoughts
YYYYMMDD-YourName
Text / Your Statements, thoughts and e-mail snippets, Please
YYYYMMDD-YourName
Text / Your Statements, thoughts and e-mail snippets, Please