• Arbitrations
• Meetings
• ATAgendaandMinutes-20121205

• To Arbitration Arbitrations - To Arbitration Training & Lessons

• Back to Arbitration Team Meetings - To Previous meeting - To Next meeting

Arbitration Team Meeting 2012-12-05 (22 CET, 21 UTC)

• Meeting will be held on IRC channel #arb-meeting

• 1 Preliminaries

  • 1.1 Appoint Chair for the Meeting
  • 1.2 Chair opens the Committee Meeting

  • 1.3 Accept the Minutes of the last Arbitration Team Meeting

• 2 Business - Important Note: Acceptance of Business 48 Hours before beginning of Arbitration Team Meeting latest!

  • 2.1 Current state of Arbitration team added by AlexRobertson

    • Review current Active Arbitrators
    • Consider splitting Arbitrators list into Active and Inactive

    • Consider whether Lesson 62 - Removal of inactive Case Managers and Arbitrators should be considered - many of the current list have apparently done nothing for a year or more. (Some cases may be stalled because of this)

      • Active - Uli, Philipp, Alex(R),Sebastian
      • Temp Inactive - Lambert, Hans, Ted, Martin, Andreas
      • Inactive - Mario, Alexander Prinsier
      • Unsure - Joel
      • No response - Nick, Thomas, Walter

  • 2.2 Establish some further procedures added by AlexRobertson

    • Decide what is meant by "Senior Arbitrator" per DRP 3.4 and in the light of what we can actually do.
    • Determine procedure for appointing an Arbitration Panel per DRP 3.4 - again may need to be considered in the light of what we can really do

  • 2.3 Review Progress of suggestions to amend DRP from Meeting 2012-10-24 added by AlexRobertson

    • PD offered to write a draft...
    • from meeting transcript

      • (23:09:42) phidelta: @u60 I'll write a draft of a policy change, evaluate it on its merits. I think you will find that it may solve that issue

    • Additionally there are some issues re DRP 3.5, 3.6 and 4.2 (and possibly 3.2) from policy group discussions where some debate as to whether changes to a decision making process should be switched from board to appeal panel in light of policy decision p20110811 which was the initial "global replace" proposed. I have personally raised the question...

      • is this the correct approach for each of these - would it be more appropriate to consider either leaving as-is or to use a single arbitrator in the first instance in some/all of these cases.
    • is there a position that the Arbitration Team wishes adopted in any/all of these...

      • I have concerns about anything increasing caseload at the moment. - Alex

      • If DRP 4.2 is changed to an appeal panel it could mean 8 arbitrators needed... - Alex

      • If DRP 4.2 is substantially changed it is likely to remove the last possible challenge to a decision taken through to an appeal decision - that would be make the arbitration appeal process the final decision but represents a significant erosion of the current rights of the members. I'm not sure that any mechanism exists beyond the appeal, but... - Alex

  • 2.4 Possible precedent cases added by AlexRobertson

    • a20120115.2

      • Name mismatch case

        This case is a essentially repeat of earlier cases, notably https://wiki.cacert.org/Arbitrations/a20090618.12 and https://wiki.cacert.org/Arbitrations/a20091128.2 so the general precedent exists that short forms of names are allowed to be recognised in the Account Name and I rule that it is allowable here that Nick may assure Russ despite the name difference between account and ID. 
        
        Based on the more general case made by the Assurance Officer with the introduction of "Relaxed Rules" for assurance, I also rule that any assurer can legitimately assure a person regardless of whether the name on the assuree's account tallies exactly with their ID Documentation or not provided 
        1. the assurer documents exactly the names that were seen on the assuree's ID documents 
        2. the assurer is convinced that the Account name, the assuree and the documentation all relate to the same individual and that the Account name is reasonable with respect to the assuree's name (If the names are vastly different and particularly if the account name is that of a well-known person, alarm bells should ring in the assurer's mind!) 
        3.that the Risks/Liabilities/Obligations are disclosed to and understood by the assuree 
        4.the assurer is satisfied that the assuree accepts the CCA 
        5.the assurer is convinced that the assuree can be brought into arbitration if needed. 
        
        Finally I recommend to the DRO and arbitration team that this second ruling is made a formal precedent that support can act upon, as I am sure that this type of case will continue to arise on a regular basis

    • a20121114.1

    • Change of Data Base
      • Werner has requested to make a change to a particular record where there is a lot of "garbage" in a field - the change requested would not change valid information held - and he was suggesting that - if allowed - it should become a precedent case.

        • I do not see any major issues with this particular case - the only question I see is "how much freedom should support have to make this kind of change without an individual ruling?" - Alex

  • 2.5 Top Two added by YourName - Comment: Replace "Top Two" 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 UTC (19 CET).
  • 4.2 Chair closes the Arbitration Team Meeting
  • 4.3 Preparation of Minutes

Minutes - Arbitration Team Meeting 2012-12-05

1 Preliminaries

1.1 Opening

Present: Alex Robertson, Bernhard Fröhlich, Dirk Astrath, Mario Lipinski, Philipp Dunkel, Uli Schröter, Werner Dworak

Meeting was chaired by Alex.

1.2 Minutes taker

Minutes will be taken by Werner.

Last minutes were carried 3,1,0.

2 Business

2.1 current state of team

As known too few active arbitrators. Alex is still waiting for more training from Philipp. Ted will take mainly emergency cases and very ambitious cases. As heavy cases a20110314.1 and a20110314.2 were mentioned.

2.2 Appeal procedure

Alex suggests, the DRO appoints the appeal panel based on procedure established from time to time. No procedure in place up to now. In the short term he suggests that the DRO appoints an "appropriate chair" based on prior involvement, case and who's available and then invite a panel via list. Uli suggests to search for the most experienced arbitrators for each individual case that aren't involved in a case. If agreeable, Alex will document it in the "training" section. Chair normally to be the most senior available arb, subject to specialist knowledge.

Philip states, he is still actively working on the proposal for a new DRP. He'll get in touch with Megan as a first reviewer and he wants several reviews before starting in policy group.

2.3 Review Progress of suggestions to amend DRP from Meeting 2012-10-24

Was discussed along 2.2, see https://wiki.cacert.org/Arbitrations/Meetings/Transcripts/transcript-meeting-121024

2.4 Proposed precedent cases

Ted admonishes, Database changes are very sensitive. So he'd avoid a precedence ruling unless a recurring pattern can safely be identified. Uli agrees.

Philipp remembers that every case sets a precedent. So there is no formal decision required. Ted objects, a precedent case in our terminology explicitly gives guidelines to support which cases do not need to be forwarded to arbitration. Yet there other kinds of precedents too.

The first case mentioned was name matching. It is similar to NL short names and it was remarked that in Anglo world short names are very common too. Philipp suggests to let support act and simply watch. And Uli remarked, with the relaxed rules in assurance we've adopted some simple rules to the assurers, that they can accept name variations, as long they'll document the full name that they've read in an Id doc of the assuree.

The second case: we had a similar case regarding pre 2006 notary entries ... this is to fix missing assurance points.

The rest of the agenda was adjourned to the next meeting.

4 Closing

The following meeting is planned for Thursday, 2013-01-17 21:00 UTC.

Synopsis of Meeting Contents

• Text

Meeting Transcript

• Meeting Transcript 2012-12-05 (Transcripts-Page-Template)

Inputs & Thoughts

• YYYYMMDD-YourName

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

• CategoryArbitration

• CategoryArbMeeting

• CategoryArbCaseAppeal