• Case Number: a20090707.1
• Status: running
• Claimants: Ulrich S
• Respondents: Peter T

• Case Manager: BernhardFröhlich

• Arbitrator: MarioLipinski

• Date of arbitration start: 2010/08/29
• Date of ruling: 2012/07/01
• Case closed: 200Y/MM/DD
• Complaint:

Link to private part

Hi Support,

At Linuxtag Berlin at June 24th 2009, i've assured Peter T
with the primary Email Address:         <<snip>>

At home, i've tried to transfer the given assurance points,
but i cannot continue, 'cause the names field includes
3 chars, that i didn't seen in the shown documents
(German IDcard, Drivers License)

On the ID documents i've seen
Givenname:      Peter
Surname:        T

In the Account i've found: 
Account shows:   Peter T pth

This conflicts
http://www.cacert.org/policy/AssurancePolicy.php  2.1. The Member's Name

Therefor i cannot continue my assurance process
until this difference is fixed.

At the face-to-face meeting, Peter hasn't an account.
In the meanwhile the account has 45 points from 2 other assurers
as stated by Peter from a reply to my first request for correction
to Peter

>From  Peter T
To    Ulrich S
Sent: Mo 06.07.2009 09:29
> > Hallo Ulrich,
> > 
> > was meinst DU mit "Namenszusatz" - kann Ja nur an meiner
> > Sauklaue
> > (Handschrift) liegen - ich habe gar keinen Plan was Du meinst
> > - ich habe inzwischen 45 Punkte von 2 weiteren die mich auf
> > dem LinuxTag "assured" haben.


Please fix the name field in Peters Account 'cause
he didn't can fix it by himself (got 45 points)

Thanks in advance ...

• Relief: TBD

Before: Arbitrator MarioLipinski (A). Respondent: Peter T (R) Claimant: Ulrich S (C) Case: a20090707.1

Original dispute filing in disputes mailing list

History Log

• 2010-08-29 (CM): Arbitrator appointed for this case
• 2010-09-04 (A): Sent initial mail to R and C.
• 2010-09-04 (A): Requested a list of all assurances rcvd by R.
• 2010-09-05 (A): C accepts CCA / DRP, sends info: cannot assure suffix.
• 2010-09-05 (CM): Support provides information: Two Assurances have been made.
• 2010-11-03 (A): sent reminder to R
• 2011-02-15 (A): sent reminder to R
• 2011-09-14 (CM): Asked A for status, offered to switch roles.
• 2011-09-16 (A): Draft Ruling
• 2012-07-01 (A): Ruling
• 2012-07-02 (A): Received reply by C. Asks for account deletion.
• 2012-07-03 (A): Follow-up, offering C to continue case and corrent name. Deadline for answer: 2012-07-17.

Discovery

R did not answer any initial mailing asking for acceptance of CCA / DRP.

DRAFT Ruling

The account of R should be deleted. R is violating CAcerts rules that require him to keep his email in good working order and / or to participate in arbitration. Since last message to R was quite some time ago, execution to be delayed at least 14 days after ruling in case R follows up. CCA termination date will be documented after execution.

Berkeley, CA, 2011-09-16 Mario Lipinski

Ruling

R's account should be deleted. R is violating CAcerts rules that require him to keep his email in good working order and/or to participate in arbitration. Since last message to R was quite some time ago, execution to be delayed at least 14 days after ruling in case R follows up. CCA termination date will be documented after execution.

It was considered to not delete the account and to just block it. As R is unresponsive it seems to me as arbitrator the best way to also aim for CCA termination.

Berkeley, CA, 2012-07-02 Mario Lipinski

Execution

Similiar Cases

---

• CategoryArbitration

• CategoryArbCaseAccountDataNameMismatch