Arbitrations/Meetings/ATAgendaandMinutes-20100406

To Arbitration Arbitrations - To Arbitration Training & Lessons
Back to Arbitration Team Meetings

Arbitration Team Meeting 2010-04-06

1 Preliminaries
- 1.1 Chair opens the Committee Meeting
- 1.2 Accept the Minutes of the last Arbitration Team Meeting (2010-03-17)
2 Businesses - Important Note: Acceptance of Businesses 48 Hours before beginning of Arbitration Team Meeting latest!
- 2.1 How to handle the arbitration cases wiki (Continued from last meeting) added by Hans Verbeek
  - Last year the arbitration wiki could be used by the arbitrator to store all relevant info. Since several month everything is almost completely anonymised, and as a result I have the impression that it is not usefull to me any more. Also the amount of data stored into the individual cases has grown to such an amount that it is almost impossible to find out what the status of an arbitration case is, except for the arbitrator that is handling this case.
- 2.2 What to do with inactive arbitrators, procedures added by AlexanderPrinsier
  - https://lists.cacert.org/wws/arc/cacert-arbitration/2010-02/msg00048.html
    - Summarize (u60)
      - first progress request to CM/A unanswered for 2 weeks -> forward info to DRO (thus doesn't affects answered progress report requests)
      - DRO continues contacting CM/A for about 2 times 2 weeks
      - so after 6 weeks replace of inactive CM and/or A becomes possible
      - DRO can consider forwarding removal of Arbitrator status to board
      - removal of Arbitrator status by board motion
    - one we should add: DRO can delegate processing to another Arbitrator
- 2.3 Name change cases and the CPS added by UlrichSchroeter
  - Since Nov 8th, 2009 CPS is policy and therefor binding. Name changes affects certs and vvs. But not all certs maybe affected. See discussion on Training Lesson 30 - Name Changes and the CPS
- 2.4 Arbitration Backlog added by UlrichSchroeter
  - The Arbitration backlog becomes more and more a problem. Currently there are 47 (!!) unhandled cases, no CM, no A appointed yet and there are addtl 30 still open, running cases, in total 77 unhandled open cases (!!) So this Arbitration backlog needs instant attention by the Arbitration team, DRO and probably also by the board. Pending Arbitration Cases
  - 2010-03-16 strawman proposal (and followups)
  - 99% of Cebit cases doesn't fit into the precedence cases schema .. so all cases becomes individual cases
  - "Looked up a few new cases. All seem straightforward: name change, switch names, typo in names. When we have one or two experienced arbitrators who provide backing info (yes, this was wrong, this is the correct name) it can be handled by Support"
- 2.5 Arbitration case a20090618.12 with precedense ? added by UlrichSchroeter
  - While the yet unpublished ruling on a20090618.12 takes a precedense. Its a seashift how to handle dutch name cases. The question here is when this ruling becomes published by request from Assurance Officer to implement it into the PracticeOnNames
- 2.6 Top Six added by YourName - Comment: Replace "Top Six" by Title of Top and add your Name
  - Additional Inputs - Comment: Replace "Additional Inputs"by Description of Top, Description of Reason-Why/Purpose, Additional Comments, Additional Documents, Additional Links, if useful for other Arbitration Team Members to prepare for Arbitration Team Meeting.
- 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 Tuesday and the 3rd Wednesday of the month, 20:00 CEST (18 UTC).
  - Wednesday: 2010-04-21, 20:00 CEST (18 UTC)
- 4.2 Chair closes the Arbitration Team Meeting
- 4.3 Preparation of Minutes

Minutes - Arbitration Team Meeting 2010-04-06

Synopsis of Meeting Contents

Meeting starts 20:02, 4 attendees online
1.2 Minutes of Arbitration Team Meeting (2010-03-17) Arbitrations/Meetings/ATAgendaandMinutes-20100317
- Summary: accepted: 3 accepted, 1 abstain
2.1 How to handle the arbitration cases wiki
- continued from last meeting: findings on question: why public or why not find tools that can be used for arbitration reporting, documentation, central repository
- no new info is available, so no news
- except Ian's statement
- Summary: no new info except Ian's statement, defered
Action plan for today: trying to fix each agenda item within 10 min

2.2 What to do with inactive arbitrators, procedures added by Alexander

proposed on https://lists.cacert.org/wws/arc/cacert-arbitration/2010-02/msg00048.html

When you think a case is stalling:
 * First write to the Arbitrator and Case Manager, and ask what is causing the delay.
 * If that remains unanswered for at least 2 weeks, you can write to the DRO explaining the case appears to be stalled.
 * The DRO tries to verify if the Arbitrator and Case Manager both happen to be on a vacation/business trip/such a thing. If so he replies to wait another few weeks. (The delay is not because of an inactive arbitrator, rather because he is *temporarily* too busy). If the DRO doesn't recall such a notice he tries contacting the Arbitrator and Case Manager again himself asking about the delay. If again there is no response for 2 weeks the DRO will look for a replacement. If only one of the two is unresponsive (Arbitrator or Case Manager), then only the unresponsive one has to be replaced of course.
 * The DRO considers whether or not it is appropriate to propose this unresponsive Arbitrator/Case Manager to the board to revoke his Arbitrator status. (related to m20091206.2)
 - We should add a notice to our init mails that the Claimant and Respondent can ask about a progress report, and if that request remains unanswered for 2 weeks, they can ask the DRO about it.

for init mailing we have a template here: Arbitrations/Training/Lesson08
- add 'If you feel this case is moving too slowly (2+ weeks for a response), you can contact the DRO to request another Arbitrator or Case Manager'
- or add 'if you feel the case is moving slowly please ask the DRO for advice'
- so the new procedure is official now? vote results in: 4 accepted (with one late vote)
Summary: procedure to become official: vote result: 4 accepted (with one late vote)

2.3 Name change cases and the CPS added by Ulrich
- one info to all working arbitrators ...
- Since Nov 8th, 2009 CPS is policy and therefor binding. Name changes affects certs and vvs. But not all certs maybe affected. See discussion on Training Lesson 30 - Name Changes and the CPS so DoB correction cases doesn't affects this, but all name changes has to be reviewed by an arbitrator
- as arbitrator you must review the name change case about certs in the case certs are created after nov 8th 2009 ... and if certs are involved.
- Summary: info only
2.5 Arbitration case a20090618.12 with precedense ? added by Ulrich
- Info only
- Andreas made an interesting ruling in case a20090618.12 thats a sea-shift for all dutch naming cases ! so it has to be considered as a precedence case for all dutch name cases the naming is seen as a country variation ... that needs to be added to PracticeOnNames ... (don't know if already added)
- the reasoning behind the ruling was that it's up to the arbitrator to accept the name as a country variation or not
- So the statement might be "An Arbitrator may rule exceptions to this guidelines. See for example a20090618.12"
- Summary: info only
2.4 Arbitration Backlog added by Ulrich
- The Arbitration backlog becomes more and more a problem. Currently there are 47 (!!) unhandled cases, no CM, no A appointed yet and there are addtl 30 still open, running cases, in total 77 unhandled open cases (!!) So this Arbitration backlog needs instant attention by the Arbitration team, DRO and probably also by the board. Pending Arbitration Cases 2010-03-16 strawman proposal (and followups) 99% of Cebit cases doesn't fit into the precedence cases schema .. so all cases becomes individual cases "Looked up a few new cases. All seem straightforward: name change, switch names, typo in names. When we have one or two experienced arbitrators who provide backing info (yes, this was wrong, this is the correct name) it can be handled by Support"
  - what I miss is some start investigation. Each and every mail is just sent to the arbitrator list, without any investigation. Cannot we ask support to do at least some investigation (is there a cert, does the user have any points, etc) I think that will help.
    - Support has currently no view over certs + privacy issues so therefor they cannot give this info before an CM/A started the case, you can't just authorise support to do anything without permission
    - I don't think it will help to already have more data on the case... there is nobody to pick it up, SE cannot handle w/o CM/A permissions! => SP / SM - with a software patch, info if CERTS exists or not can be given by an SE
    - if no CM / A handles the case ... the init mailing and the Arb handling may vary to 1/2 a year - its too long - each case needs a CM/A pair ... an active CM/A pair - then with SE help you get the case started - but if there is no CM/A available .. you don't need let SE start the init mailing ... the info gets lost
    - what we can do is to walk thru arbitration cases ... that are handled identical ... write down the steps ... try to write a precendence ruling - if ... matches ... then SE can handle ....
    - have a look at precedence Arbitrations/a20100210.2 - there is a long list of if then else and cases, not all can be easily detected by an SE, but this doesn't helped for Fosdem / Cebit big events - each case is too very special - so it needs a review by CM/ A
    - what about a quick court? claimants comes prepared with as much info as possible which he gets from support,
      - make a proposal ...
    - send it into cacert-arbitration .... arbitrator can rule, and if both parties agree, then fixed. if they don't agree, then it goes to the real disputes queue all name change requests would be eligible for that and delete account requests etc
- Summary: closed w/o concensus, only discussion
4.1 Confirm next Arbitration Team Meeting: Usually every 1st Tuesday and the 3rd Wednesday of the month, 20:00 CEST (18 UTC). Wednesday: 2010-04-21, 20:00 CEST (18 UTC)
- agreed
21:02 meeting closed

Meeting Transcript

Meeting Transcript 2010-04-06 (Transcripts-Page-Template)

Inputs & Thoughts

YYYYMMDD-YourName

Text / Your Statements, thoughts and e-mail snippets, Please

YYYYMMDD-YourName

Text / Your Statements, thoughts and e-mail snippets, Please

Arbitrations/Meetings/ATAgendaandMinutes-20100406 (last edited 2010-06-02 20:11:05 by UlrichSchroeter)