= Arbitration / Training =
The Training Course for Case Managers and Arbitrators

[[Arbitrations/Training|Training Home]] / [[Arbitrations/Training/Lesson34|back]]

== Lesson 40 -  Arbitration - Ruling ==

 * The Arbitration Process flow can be split in 5 - 6 steps:
  1. Pickup - Accept as Arbitration or Dismiss
  1. Search for Case Manager / Arbitrator, Init mailing
  1. Investigation process / Discovery
   * Intermediate Rulings
  1. Ruling
  1. Execution

==== Intermediate Rulings ====

 * In difference to a Ruling, the Intermediate Ruling is an Arbitrators action, that prevents the nature of a problem - i.e. If something is going strange, an Arbitrator can start an intermediate ruling to prevent ongoing security breaches, Policy breaches and so on, despite the fact, this is not the final Ruling.
 * Maybe the Arbitrator comes to another conclusion after hearing all the facts until the final Ruling.

=== Ruling ===
How can an Arbitrator can come to a ruling?
 * The ruling is the decision an Arbitrator has to do.
 * The decision is primarily based upon written Policies including Handbooks, Guidances, Subsidiary Policies and other documents that helps to find answers to the questions related to the current arbitration case.
 * If Policies aren't written about details, Arbitrator has to ask questions. To find questions, that he will answer in the ruling, are an essential part to structure an Arbitration case.
 * Finding questions to answer in the ruling is part of the Deliberation, Rationale, Discovery process. An Arbitrator can decide to present his Deliberations to the Arbitration participants as a discussion to get more answers or to get a response, if it is that the parties asked for before find a final ruling.
 * The questions have to be complete as possible. So if there are open questions or unasked and unanswered questions, the ruling can get appealed or re-opened.
 * Also to have in mind about the nature of disputes, that relates to communication problems, or are personalty based (check principles!!!).
  * A policy breach can be seen under another PoV, if no communication has been established before, to push the policy to the community. That's often a problem in these days, as new policies are written and Assurers didn't hear about the new policies before. So a policy breach needs to be weighted. Did (R) has a chance to become aware about a new policy that was breached?
  * A dispute filing against a policy breach that is not primarily based upon the policy breach, but about soft antipathy that relates to principles (i.e. the antipathy new assurers have against the "old" Super-Assurers and vice versa)

From DRP:
The Arbitrator records:
   1. The Identification of the Parties,
   2. The Facts,
   3. The logic of the rules and law,
   4. The directions and actions to be taken by each party (the ruling).
   5. The date and place that the ruling is rendered. 

==== Arbitrators Authority ====
 * The Arbitrators Authority is given in
  * '''[[http://www.cacert.org/policy/DisputeResolutionPolicy.php#2.1|DRP 2.1 Authority]]''' and
  * '''[[http://www.cacert.org/policy/DisputeResolutionPolicy.php#3.3|DRP 3.3  Binding and Final]]'''

So therefore the acceptance to CCA and DRP needs to be checked and verified under Section 2 ([[Arbitrations/Training/Lesson10#2._Search_for_Case_Manager_/_Arbitrator,_Init_mailing|Init mailing]]) by the Case Manager / Arbitrator for all Arbitration participants of a case.


=== Questions ===

 * When you should write an Intermediate Ruling ?

 * On which essential parts a Ruling is based upon ?

 * What is the core issue of a Ruling ?


[[Arbitrations/Training/Lesson50|next]]

----
 . CategoryArbitration
 . CategoryArbitrationsTraining