* Case Number: a20091118.1
  * Status: closed
  * Claimants: Dirk Astrath, Werner Dworak (as SE), Joost Steijlen (as SE)
  * Respondents: Robert Cruikshank ( --( SebastianKueppers, Philipp Gühring )-- )
  * Case Manager: Alexander Prinsier
  * Arbitrator: UlrichSchroeter
  * Date of arbitration start: 2009-12-04
  * Date of ruling: 2010-11-26
  * Case closed: 2010-11-26
  * Complaint: Assurance(s) while TTP program frozen --( 3 disputes: TTPfrozen, Arbitrator, Systemchanges )--

Dispute filing from case [[Arbitrations/a20090518.1|a20090518.1]]
{{{
Against what mandated in the AP people is still getting 150 points from the TTP programme which is (in theory) frozen until we get a sub-policy, and when it was supposed to be limited to 100 points.
}}}

Dispute filing from 2009-11-18
{{{
on 11-11-2009 i got a message via the cacert-support-list with the following content:

from:	 website-form@cacert.org schrieb:

> > From: S* H*
> > Email: s*@h*
> > Subject: Rounding down of assurance points
> >
> > Message:
> > Hi,
> >
> > I used the TTP method to get assured. When it was put into the
system, the points awarded to me were rounded down (see mail copied in below).
> >
> > Aside from becoming an assurer myself, are there any other benefits
of becoming assured. At this point, I've been assuming that when I get enough points, certificates I generate will then actually contain my name (not just CaCert WoT user); it this correct?
> >
> > You are receiving this email because you have been assured by Robert
Cruikshank (robert@cruikshanks.net).
> >
> > You were issued 150 points however the system has rounded this down
to 35 and you now have 35 points in total.
> >
> > Best regards
> > CAcert Support Team

(i replaced the name of the assuree with * to keep the data-protection. you may take a look in the support-mailing-list to find his name ... but his name is not the main point in these disputes)

however ... in detail:

i want to file a dispute against several people:

(1)	against robert c. ... as i did in dispute a20090518.1
	maybe you can add this dispute to this case ...
(background: robert gives 150 points for ttp-assurances while the ttp-program is frozen and the assurance policy allowes 50 points per assurance only)

(2)	against sebastian k. ... since he is the arbitrator in the
above case ... and did not rule anything since may to ensure, that ttp is frozen.

(3)	against philipp g. ... since he made changes to the system,
which avoid correct ttp-assurances by rounding down the points to 35 instead of 50

------------------

when processing these cases, i want the arbitrator to re-check the ttp-assurances made since the ttp-program was frozen, because i think, that there will be some more ttp-assurances in the time between may and november. (i don't want to know the number or names ... i simply want to act cacert according to the assurance policy).

according the dispute against sebastian take care, that the time-frame is MUCH TOO LONG ... especially in this case, where assurances were made AGAINST the assurance policy. there may be other cases (date-of-birth, additional name) where it doesn't care, if the case is ruled a week or month earlier or later.

according the dispute against philipp this is a small bug, which causes no acts against the assurance policy ... but think about bugs, which may cause possible actions against the assurance policy. in my eyes there should be no modifications possible at the web-server without a second person checking the patch being implemented. (hint: i don't want to rule, since i'm no arbitrator ... it's just MY humble opinion as a normal cacert-user)

according the email-adresses of the three users in this mail: these email-adresses should be well-known to any cacert-member, arbitrator etc.

according a20090518.1 there had been changes in the wiki-entry in may ... since then nothing happened there ... now we have november. the only change there was an entry in october where ulrich stepped in as case manager. there had been no answer to his request by the arbitrator or former case manager until now ...

have a nice day

ps: ... and yes ... i accept the CCA ...
}}}

Additional Dispute filing
{{{
Hello Arbitrators,

herby I file dispute against Robert C.. He made a false
assurance. Checking Stig E. <email anonymized> I found the following
assurance:

-----------------------------------------------------------------
Assurance Punkte

Datum 	Wer 	E-Mail 	Punkte 	Ort 	Methode

<date> <time> Robert C. <email anonymized> 35 	TTP
Face to Face Meeting

Punkte insgesamt: 	35 	
---------------------------------------------------------------

Please regard the place "TTP" and Method "Face to Face Meeting"! From
the context below I assume that Robert and Stig never met face to face.

Regards, Werner Dworak
}}}
 * Dispute filing, [s20100409.88], dated 2010-04-09
{{{
I've got a support request by someone who wanted code-signing 
activated on his account.
Included in his mail was the confirmation mail from Robert Cruikshank 
detailing a TTP assurance per 21st of September 2009. (Relation to 
a20091118.1)

Upon looking at his trust points I noticed only the one TTP assurance 
by Robert. No others given nor received.

The question is, can I give him code-signing on his account? As it 
would be based on a flawed (illegal) assurance.
}}}

  * Relief: TBD

Before: Arbitrator name arbitor (A), Respondent: Robert Cruikshank (R1), --( SebastianKueppers (R2), Philipp Gühring (R3) )--, Claimant: Dirk Astrath (C1), Werner Dworak (C2), Joost Steijlen (C3), Case: a20091118.1

 ''regarding a20090518.1 this case is listed as seperate dispute, 'cause dispute filing is also against the arbitrotor of this case, this prevents merge of this case to a20090518.1''

 ''after ruling of arbitration case [[Arbitrations/a20091118.4|a20091118.4]], case [[Arbitrations/a20090518.1|a20090518.1]] is now merged into this case''


----

== History Log ==
 . 2009-11-18 (UlrichSchroeter): added this case to wiki, request for CM and A
 . 2009-12-02 (UlrichSchroeter): added 2nd dispute from (C2) against (R1) to this case
 . 2009-12-02 (A): i'll take care about this case
 . 2009-12-02 (C1): accepted CCA / DRP within dispute filing
 . 2009-12-02 (CM): I'll take this as CM
 . 2009-12-04 (A): intermediate ruling 1 about frozen TTP program
 . 2009-12-04 (A): intermediate ruling 2 to split this case to 3 seperated cases
 . 2009-12-04 (A): wiki admin replied regarding intermediate ruling 1, that wiki pages are now fixed.
 . 2009-12-04 (A): rcvd report from Critical Sysadmins team that the intermediate ruling 1 has been executed for the page /pages/wot/4.php, re-request specific changes if needed

{{{
> To the Sysadmin team:
> please add also the note on the main website page
> _https://secure.cacert.org/wot.php?id=4_
> => /pages/wot/4.php
> or if this isn't possible remove this page completely.

Done, on December 4, 2009. See also:
https://lists.cacert.org/wws/arc/cacert-systemlog/2009-12/msg00005.html

> This intermediate ruling is based on the board motions
>   * _https://community.cacert.org/board/motions.php?motion=m20090912.1_
> that freezes this program and
>   * _https://community.cacert.org/board/motions.php?motion=m20090914.2_
> take it in effect.
> If there are other pages around on the main website, handle it according.

If there are any other pages which require this modification, please
report them specifically, and we will handle them.
}}}

 . 2009-12-04 (A): intermediate ruling 3 about frozen TTP program, addtl. pages needs to be fixed
 . 2009-12-04 (A): rcvd report from Critical Sysadmins team that the intermediate ruling 3 has been executed
 . 2009-12-05 (CM): sent init mails to (C2) and (R1)
 . 2009-12-05 (C2): accepts CCA / DRP
 . 2009-12-05 (A): requests info about database structure - table: users - ttpadmin flag usage from Education Officer
 . 2009-12-05 (A): rcvd infos from Education officer which database flags and which levels are needed to execute TTP assurance request
 . 2009-12-05 (A): request to arbitrator of case [[Arbitrations/a20090810.3|a20090810.3]] regarding the 150 pts level
 . 2009-12-05 (A): rcvd info from arbitrator of case [[Arbitrations/a20090810.3|a20090810.3]] that script has been executed late October 2009 to limit the points of users to 150 points.
 . 2009-12-05 (A): request to former auditor Iang and Author Sam Johnston of [[http://svn.cacert.org/CAcert/Policies/RemoteAssurancePolicy.html|Remote Assurance Policy (WIP)]] to answer some questions
 . 2009-12-05 (A): questions to Lambert Hofstra, familiar with audit requirements regarding [[http://svn.cacert.org/CAcert/Policies/RemoteAssurancePolicy.html|Remote Assurance Policy (WIP)]]
 . 2009-12-05 (A): request to Crit.Sysadmins team of 3 sql queries: ttpadmin=1; board=1; ttpadmin=1 and board=1
 . 2009-12-05 (A): Crit.Sysadmins team request answered
 . 2009-12-06 (A): rcvd statement from PG regarding relation of TTP program and Assurance points
 . 2009-12-06 (A): request to support: has Robert C. admin flag set/unset? assurances Robert C. made since AP becomes to Draft
 . 2009-12-06 (A): req. to PG about the 150 pts limitation. When did this happen and who asked for / ordered this?
 . 2009-12-06 (A): rcvd answer from support: (R) admin flag not set. rcvd assurances made list
 . 2009-12-06 (A): req. to board members with several questions
 . 2009-12-07 (A): rcvd viewpoints from individual boardmembers regarding TTP program in relation to policy work and actual practice
 . 2009-12-07 (A): rcvd report from board member that the intermediate ruling 1 request has been executed 
 . 2009-12-25 (A): merged-in case [[Arbitrations/a20090518.1|a20090518.1]] after ruling [[Arbitrations/a20091118.4|a20091118.4]]
 . 2009-12-27 (A): request for scan of CAP form, request for statement of PoV from (R1)
 . 2009-12-27 (A): request addtl. infos about account (R1) from Support (assurances rcvd, assurances after Nov 11th)
 . 2009-12-27 (A): request for mutual assurance to Mark L. if meeting happens with (R1) as expected
 . 2010-01-10 (A): request for scan of CAP form, request for statement of PoV from (R1)
 . 2010-02-22 (A): 3rd and last request for scan of CAP form, request for statement of PoV from (R1) with deadline: March 8th 2010 23:00 UTC
 . 2010-02-24 (A): contacting 2 board members regarding board action item "deliver firmly worded letter to former public officer" (mark) to (R1) so this arbitration case deadline set may interfere the board action item and vvs. (see [[Brain/CAcertInc/Committee/MeetingAgendasAndMinutes/20100221|Board Meeting Agendas And Minutes 2010-02-21]] 1.3). Also request for information about the public CAcert P.O. Box handling of paperwork.
 . 2010-03-19 (A): deadline on request to (R1) passed w/o response
 . 2010-03-20 (A): contacting former board members, Software Engineer with questions regarding the old, now frozen TTP program
 . 2010-03-20 (A): Rcvd answer from Guillaume R (see discovery)
 . 2010-03-21 (A): Rcvd answer from Greg R, no infos so far
 . 2010-03-22 (IanG): answer to mail from 2010-03-20
 . 2010-03-23 (A): searching a proxy for (R1). Sent request to old and new board members
 . 2010-03-23 (Daniel B): answer to mail from 2010-03-23
 . 2010-03-23 (Ian G): answer to mail from 2010-03-23
 . 2010-03-23 (Teus H): answer to mail from 2010-03-23
 . 2010-03-23 (Ernestine): answer to mail from 2010-03-23
 . 2010-03-23 (Guillaume): answer to mail from 2010-03-23
 . 2010-03-23 (Ernestine): answer #2 to mail from 2010-03-23
 . 2010-03-24 (A): requesting CAP form scan from Assurer Sebastian K
 . 2010-03-24 (A): answer to Ernestine about answer #2, dated 2010-03-23
 . 2010-03-24 (Mario): answer to mail from 2010-03-23
 . 2010-04-09 (issue.c.o) case [s20100409.88]
 . 2010-04-12 (UlrichSchroeter): added to wiki, merged to a20091118.1 
 . 2010-04-12 (A): reminder about CAP form scan from Assurer Sebastian K
 . 2010-04-12 (A): Intermediate Ruling #4
 . 2010-04-12 (A): exec req. about intermediate ruling #4 sent to (Support), (R1)
 . 2010-04-12 (A): questions regarding intermediate ruling #4 exec steps  sent to Support, Board Members, Infrastructure Admin, Software Engineers
 . 2010-04-12 (A): email to (R1) about handover of CAP forms / TTP CAP forms regarding execution steps of intermediate ruling #4
 . 2010-04-12 (C3): question regarding addtl. dispute filing
 . 2010-04-12 (A): answer given thru intermediate ruling #4 as it can be currently given
 . 2010-04-12 (Support): regarding exec req. about intermediate ruling #4: account of (R1) has been blocked
 . 2010-04-12 (Support): answer to question #2 regarding exec steps of intermediate ruling #4: That seems to require hijacking.
 . 2010-04-15 (A): rcvd message from (R1)
 . 2010-06-10 (CM): requesting progress report from A
 . 2010-06-18 (A): answer sent to (CM) about the next step ... that needs much intuition to complete, a ruling is far from finishing yet, as long (R1)'s response hasn't not discovered and continued, intermediate ruling #4 is on hold
 . 2010-06-24 (A): preview of an email for (R1) sent to GR for a review, as GR was the man in the middle, who helped on getting in contact with (R1), who worked together with (R1) on a former Board
 . 2010-06-24 (GR): I look more carefully at your mail as soon as practically possible
 . 2010-07-28 (A): reviewed, no answer yet, no info yet ... 
 . 2010-08-24 (A): reminder to (GR) sent
 . 2010-08-24 (A): an answer received from (GR)
 . 2010-08-28 (A): request for CCA / DRP acceptance from (R)
 . 2010-08-29 (R): accepts CCA
 . 2010-08-30 (A): intermediate ruling #5 that replaces intermediate ruling #4
 . 2010-08-30 (A): exec req. about intermediate ruling #5 sent to (Support), (R1)
 . 2010-08-30 (Support): executed as requested
 . 2010-08-31 (A): support, please provide me with the list of all assurances given by (Duane G) and (R) in the role of TTP admin
 . 2010-09-01 (Support): [s20100831.103] sends list to (A)
 . 2010-09-10 (A): to (Critical sysadmins): please execute following query on two users: (R) and (#2)
   {{{
select notary.when, notary.date, u2.fname, u2.lname, u2.email, notary.awarded, notary.points, notary.location, notary.method, 0 from notary inner join users on notary.from =users.id inner join users u2 on u2.id=notary.to where users.email='###' and notary.from <> notary.to order by notary.when;
}}}
 . 2010-09-10 (Critical sysadmins): send the result set in a file to (A)
 . 2010-09-10 (A): req. to (Critical sysadmins) of a history log on /pages/wot/6.php
 . 2010-09-11 (Critical sysadmins): sends repository history log of /pages/wot/6.php
 . 2010-09-11 (A): req. to (Critical sysadmins) of a history log on /www/wot.php
 . 2010-10-06 (MW): forward of irc chat log with (PG) with new informations
 . 2010-10-06 (A): email to (R) with 8 sample assurances, where method type is unidentified, to assist in this arbitration case to identify the method of these assurances, to correct an unknown count of "old" errors in webdb
 . 2010-10-06 (A): phone talk with (C) about a procedure to correct error records relating TTP assurances. (C) suggested a 4 step procedure
 . 2010-11-11 (A): reminder and clarification about email dated 2010-10-06 to (R) as a witness regarding database content errors.
 . 2010-11-11 (R): sends a list of undef assurance methods in database and their real relation by CAP forms

----

== Intermediate Rulings ==
=== Intermediate Ruling 1 ===
To the wiki admins:
Add on all TTP assurance pages on top a warning, that the program is actualy frozen
like on all wiki pages:
||<#FF8080>Note that the TTP programme is effectively '''Frozen'''||
||<#FF8080>Until a subsidiary policy under AP is written, it is against AP rules.||

To the Sysadmin team:
please add also the note on the main website page
https://secure.cacert.org/wot.php?id=4
=> /pages/wot/4.php
or if this isn't possible remove this page completely.
This intermediate ruling is based on the board motions 
  * [[https://community.cacert.org/board/motions.php?motion=m20090912.1|m20090912.1]] that freezes this program and
  * [[https://community.cacert.org/board/motions.php?motion=m20090914.2|m20090914.2]] take it in effect.
If there are other pages around on the main website, handle it according.

To the Board:
A blog notify hasn't been published yet that exactly states, that the TTP program is frozen right now.
Please publish or order publishing an article about that motion that says, that the TTP program
is frozen, asap.

Frankfurt/M. Dec 4th 2009

Comment:
Users can get the impression, that the TTP progam is activly running. On uncounted number of pages on the main site and on the wiki site there are informations where and how to use TTP, but only a view pages has a remark, that the program is frozen. TTP Forms are available everywhere without a remark, that this TTP program is frozen.
Also there was no announcement by mailing or an article on the blog that states, that this special assurance program is stopped.
This needs to be fixed until a subpolicy for this special assurance program has been shifted to Draft and therefor in State Policy. As there is no release date available for such a policy, the hard work needs to be done. Label all occurences to the TTP program with the info, that the program is actualy frozen.
Mailing out this info to the community members isn't appropriate, but such a solid cut in the assurance program needs an announcement on the blog and this can be done easily.

 * Wiki fixed: report to (A)
 * Critical system fix: see report https://lists.cacert.org/wws/arc/cacert-systemlog/2009-12/msg00005.html
 * Board request fixed: see report https://lists.cacert.org/wws/arc/cacert-board/2009-12/msg00052.html to blog article [[https://blog.cacert.org/2009/12/448.html|Discontinuation of “Trusted Third Party” assurances]] from Dec 7th 2009

=== Intermediate Ruling 2 ===
I hereby order that this case has to be split in 3 parts, as of complexity.
 * Part II, dispute against arbitrator of arbitration case [[Arbitrations/a20090518.1|a20090518.1]]
 . => new case number [[Arbitrations/a20091118.4|a20091118.4]]
 . and
 * Part III, dispute against Philipp G. who made changes to the system, which avoid correct TTP-assurances by rounding down the points to 35 instead of 50
 . => new case number [[Arbitrations/a20091118.5|a20091118.5]]

have to be seperated to individual case numbers.
 * Part I, dispute(s) while TTP-program is frozen will still remain under this arbitration case number [[Arbitrations/a20091118.1|a20091118.1]]. To not merge this case to [[Arbitrations/a20090518.1|a20090518.1]] is prevented by an addtl. dispute against the arbitrator of case a20090518.1 (Part II) so this case will still remain seperated.
Frankfurt/M. Dec 4th 2009

Comment: leaving all 3 issues in one case forces stalling this arbitration case. Seperation is an alternate solution to prevent this. The dispute against an arbitrator is limited to this special case only so it can be handled individualy. The same happens with the code modification dispute which can be handled without direct relation to the usage of the TTP program. This question is another one. Its also possible that one of the sub-disputes can be dismissed, and other sub-disputes still continues.

=== Intermediate Ruling 3 ===
from my review also following pages needs such a modificaction:

https://secure.cacert.org/wot.php?id=2    /pages/wot/2.php
http://www.cacert.org/index.php?id=19     /pages/index/19.php

I hereby order to also to bring this modification to
the above listed pages.

Frankfurt/M., Dec 4th 2009

Critical system fix: see report https://lists.cacert.org/wws/arc/cacert-systemlog/2009-12/msg00006.html

----

== Discovery ==
 * [[Software/Database/StructureDefined|Database and Table structures]] assumes that the user table includes the flag TTPadmin with which a user is enabled to activly answer and execute TTP requests
 . relates to the question: who is able to execute TTP assurance requests?

 * Status overview Assurance Policy
 . [[https://wiki.cacert.org/Brain/PoliciesAndSignificantTechnicalStandards/StatusOverview?action=info|COD13 - AP - Assurance Policy]]

 * [[http://www.cacert.org/policy/AssurancePolicy.php|AP]] 4.3. Assurance Points -> The maximum number of Assurance Points which can be allocated for an Assurance under this policy and under any act under any Subsidiary Policy (below) is 50 Assurance Points.
 . Status of AP: Last change date: 2009-01-08, Status: POLICY p20090105.2 

 * [[PolicyDiscussionsOverview#maximum_of_assurance_points_one_can_get|Maximum of Assurance Points one can get]]
  * This is a Policy Discussions Overview. The initial document states:
  * 2008-04-04 150 points is too high, equal to normal assurer (35 points?)? 
  * 2008-05-11 150 points is too high, Assurance Policy suggests a limit of 50 points on any assurance process., should TTP be 35 points, the same as any other assurer?, unclear why a TTP is considered more authoritive than our own most experienced and trained Assurers. 
  * 2008-07-14 (Feb 2008) Limit amount of points with TTP eg to 100 (each TTP 50) Consensus: TTP should not give Assurer power eg without Assurer Challenge. Opinions: TTP assured individual should become active as Assurer and help. # Assurance Policy suggests a limit of 50 points on any assurance process (see Assurance Policy) # should TTP be 35 points, the same as any other assurer? 
 * 2008-04-22 [[http://svn.cacert.org/CAcert/Policies/RemoteAssurancePolicy.html|CACert Remote Assurance Policy (RAP) (WIP)]] 3.1 j+k 
 . 3.1 j: Suggested (iang, heard in a discussion, and following AP):
  . For each TTP, RAO approves the allocation of 35 Assurance Points, making 70 points. 
 . 3.1 k: Suggested (iang, heard in a discussion, and following AP):
  . Additionally, RAO may submit to the Board for the allocation of a further 30 Assurance Points, making 100 points available.

 * 2009-12-06 Statement PG
{{{
I was asked to remove the super-assurer status of all super-assurers.
I did modify those persons accounts to limit their CAcert-Points to 150
points, to remove their super-assurer status. (Including Robert
C. Account)
The system always enforces (previously and now), that people that have
150 points can issue maximum 35 points.
Since TTP issues more than 35 points, the person that does a TTP
assurance has to have at least 200 points, to be able to issue more than
35 points.

I only did changes to the database, by limiting the points of the
accounts, I was asked to.
[...]
}}}

 * Board motion [[https://community.cacert.org/board/motions.php?motion=m20090912.1|m20090912.1]] Assurance under Assurance Policy only
 * Board motion [[https://community.cacert.org/board/motions.php?motion=m20090914.2|m20090914.2]] Confirm Motion m20090912.1

----
=== Timeline of Policy Descisions and Motions ===
 * 2008-07-12 [[PolicyDecisions#p20080712.1_Assurance_Policy|p20080712.1]] Assurance Policy
  . Proposal for Assurance Policy to move from WIP to DRAFT status.
  . Votes: 9 Ayes, 1 Nay, 4 Abstentions.

 * 2009-01-05 [[PolicyDecisions#p20090105.2_Assurance_Policy_status:_POLICY|p20090105.2]] Assurance Policy status: POLICY
  . Proposal to accept Assurance Policy as POLICY has been voted on. Votes ended 24th of December 2008.
  . AYE: 5 - Nay: 0
  . (AP is now on main website.)

 * 2009-09-12 [[https://community.cacert.org/board/motions.php?motion=m20090912.1|m20090912.1]] - m20090912.1
  . Approved 2009-09-20 00:00:03 UTC m20090912.1
  . Assurance under Assurance Policy only
  . Resolved, that this committee, officers and all Assurers are charged to
  . ensure that all assurance follows Assurance Policy, made binding DRAFT
  . p20080712.1 and POLICY p20090105.2.
  . Further resolved, to cease all assurance activity outside Assurance
  . Policy.  Old programmes not as yet translated into the new Assurance Policy
  . regime of subsidiary policies include:
  . - super-assurance
  . - TVerify
  . - assurances by and of Juniors
  . - TTP
  . These are to cease immediately, and be only restarted when the appropriate
  . subsidiary policy under AP is passed into DRAFT by policy group.

  . This committee notes with concern that any assurance conducted outside AP
  . (after its passing into binding DRAFT) is subject to reversal and worse by
  . the Arbitrator.
  . Due: 2009-09-19 23:59:59 UTC
  . Proposed: Ian Grigg (2009-09-12 13:44:44 UTC)
  . Vote type: veto
  . Aye|Naye|Abstain: 5|0|0

 * 2009-09-14 [[https://community.cacert.org/board/motions.php?motion=m20090914.2|m20090914.2]] - Confirm Motion m20090912.1

 * 2009-09-28 [[https://community.cacert.org/board/motions.php?motion=m20090928.1|m20090928.1]] - Tverify continues till Nov 16, 2009
  . Approved 2009-10-06 00:00:02 UTC m20090928.1
  . Run Tverify as-is until End Of Life 20091116
  . Aye|Naye|Abstain: 6|1|0

=== Technical ===
 * Database Structure and Fields that relates to Special Assurance Programs
 . as defined under [[Software/Database/StructureDefined|Database Structure]]
  * Notary: This table contains all data for events which award Trust Points: Assurances, TTP, Thawte Point transfers etc. 
  * Cats_Passed: Lists all the tests passed by a user. 
  * TVerify: ?
  * TVerify-Vote: ?
  * Users: Contains one record for each registered user.
   . parameters that probably relates to special assurance programs
|| codesign || int(1) || 1 if allowed to request code signing certs ||
|| 1024bit || tinyint(1) || ? ||
|| admin || tinyint(1) || 1 if user is admin ||
|| ttpadmin || tinyint(1) || 1 if user is TTP admin ||
|| orgadmin || tinyint(1) || 1 if user is Org admin ||
|| board || tinyint(1) || 1 if user is member of CAcert's board (?) ||
|| tverify || tinyint(1) || 1 if user is tverify admin (?) ||
|| locadmin || tinyint(1) || 1 if user can administer the location database ||
|| assurer || int(2) || 1 if user is Assurer (100 Assurance Points plus Challenge). This field is caching only, if performance does not forbid try to select the underlying data instead. ||
|| assurer_blocked || tinyint(1) || 1 if user may not become assurer ||


----

 * Who is responsible for CAcert's postal address "CAcert Inc. - P.O. Box 4107 - Denistone East NSW 2112 - Australia" ?
 * Who receives further TTP CAP forms ?
 * Other Action items regarding (R1)
  * board action item "deliver firmly worded letter to former public officer" (mark) to (R1)
  * see [[Brain/CAcertInc/Committee/MeetingAgendasAndMinutes/20100221|Board Meeting Agendas And Minutes 2010-02-21]] 1.3 - Progress on agreed ACTION items
 * 2010-01-30 [[AGM/RuleChange/OurDisputeResolution|agm20100130.4.1]] Internal Dispute Resolution - Result - CARRIED
  * question: is the "TTP frozen" dispute against an Inc member ? or against a community member ?
  * the result of this question will influences this arbitration ruling, as above rule change was carried 2010-01-30 and the dispute filing received 2009-05-18 and 2009-11-18, so before this last AGM Inc rule change (internal Arbitration Forum) comes into effect
 * questions regarding old, now frozen TTP program
  1. The currently frozen TTP program was implemented when to the system ? (ttp admin field enabling for a user, flag have to be set thru support)
  1. What was the proposed procedure to add TTP admins to the system ? Board motion ? Request to Support ? Arbitration Ruling ?
  1. Who has decided about this procedure in the past ? (before TTP program was frozen)
  1. Was this procedure ever used ? (has someone got the TTPadmin flag set?)
  1. If question 4 answer is yes: who and what was the procedure ?
  1. Was there a board decision about the TTP program that someone has to be appointed to do the TTP assurances?
 * Mail from Guillaume R, dated 2010-03-20
{{{
1. The ttp flag is not enough, you need more that 150 points to grant TTP points.
As of today, I can see Robert has only 150 points and no more flag.

2. Only Robert was allowed to process the data. In the past, Duane dealt with the TTP program.
I am not sure but Robert has replaced Duane when Duane left the association. see reply #6

3. The process to complete the TTP forms was written on a wiki page. But I don't know any process to award someone as TTP admin

4. I guess the TTP admin nomination was a private discussion between CAcert board and support admins. see reply #6

5. N/A in my opinion

6. I don't know.
At first, the TTP admin was implicitely the person getting the Postal Box of the association so the Public Officer. It used to be a board member : CAcert President (Duane) or CAcert Treasurer (Robert).

We kept the same process when we "allowed" to users to send the TTP forms by emails to support@ then forwarding to the Public Officer.

We considered the Public Officer as trustable enough to handle the job.
}}}
 * Mail from Ian G, dated 2010-03-22
{{{
> Can you please provide me with some answers
> to the following questions:


That which Guillaume says sounds about right.  The only one I can see 
that I can comment on is this one:

> 2. What was the proposed procedure to add TTP admins
>     to the system ?
>     Board motion ? Request to Support ?
TTP was in place before the time of written policies, so if a procedure 
existed, it would have been Board motion followed by request to support. 
  That request to Support might have gone to PG or Duane as Support 
themselves can't control the points system past 150 points.

>     Arbitration Ruling ?
No, DRP was approved well after TTP was up and rolling.
}}}
 * Mail from Daniel B, dated 2010-03-23
{{{
It is really hard to see what the case it about or more particularly why you 
need a respondent.

My opinion is put put CAcert as a respondent and let the arbitrator decide 
over what the ruling of policy is. CAcert has been a respondent in other 
cases.

I especially don't think it is fair to ask former board members with the 
exception of Robert (because of a non-board act) to be a respondent here as 
their actions don't seem to be in question.

If you really want to name someone name the current CAcert board collectively. 
If some info is need about TTP forms then Mark as a public officer can try to 
answer however the Robert probably still has them.

I don't see a need to seek or apply legal counsel to this case.
}}}
 * Mail from Ian G, dated 2010-03-23
{{{
If the respondent is not responding then there is a greater issue than 
the loss of statements/povs:  CCA says that the email address must be 
kept in good working order, and that disputes must be referred to 
Arbitration.  As the Respondent has accepted CCA (I infer this from 
presence and voting for CCA at Pirmasens TOP, on official business of 
CAcert, etc), the Respondent appears to be in breach of CCA.

This would appear to dominate every other question.

[...]
>    3. You each need to notify me if you are seeking legal counsel (a
>       lawyer). This is not recommended. Rather, if you feel the need for
>       help, I can ask an experienced Assurer to assist you.
>
> and as Robert didn't respond within the
> last 3,5 months to any emailing until now -
> the last deadline was set after 3 mailings,
> deadline: March 8th 2010
> but also w/o response.

Robert has not requested this, clearly.

[...]
I would echo Dan's comment that the current board directors probably 
can't perform that role.  Especially the ones that were in the opposing 
faction of mid 2009, which would leave Lambert and Mario.

Also, assistance to Robert is only useful if he requests it.  That is a 
very different thing to the Arbitrator appointing a proxy without 
respondent's request.  I suppose you can do that -- appoint a proxy of 
some form -- because the Arbitrator has wide powers.  But independence 
and seniority is likely an issue.

Having made this step, I suspect you will have to *APPOINT* someone as 
the proxy, because the lack of a volunteer when you have asked for this 
proxy will be seen as a weakness in the ruling, and will be attackable 
in court if there is an adverse ruling against Robert.

Just my 2c worth.....
}}}
 * Mail from Teus H, dated 2010-03-23
{{{
Have currently no time available for you to look into it.
Consider:
A representative needs comments of Robert Cruikshank in this case before he can act. The orther possibility is to ask two persons to look into this and the history. From that the arbiter can draw a conclusion.
}}}
 * Mail from Ernestine, dated 2010-03-23 (translated to English by (A))
{{{
2010-01-30:"question: is the "TTP frozen" dispute against an Inc member ? or against a community member ? 
And why there is this question, if against an Inc Member or Community Member is also incomprehensible to me.

The address was the official CAcert Adress in the past, for which the Public Officer was responsible, if he
was Inc member or not doesn't plays absolutely no role. People should sent their mail to this official adress -
so I have understand the former TTP program, why it is sent to him. As Public Officer he has dutys, he doesn't
follow them. And how the rules are for a Public Officers, are written in the Australien Law, the periods
for handout is 14 days (as I have remind it correctly).
}}}
 * Mail from Guillaume, dated 2010-03-23
{{{
I don't have spare time but I could volunteer.

Why ? because I was part of support team and I was able to forward
ciphered email containing TTP requests to Robert. We would need an audit
in support emails to know if I've really forwarded TTP requests during
the frozen period.

Please don't shot the messenger.

for my defense, the days of TTP were unclear until someone raised the
red flag and started a dispute.
}}}
 * Mail from Ernestine, dated 2010-03-23
{{{
Something comes to my mind as I today printed forms, did Robert accepted CCA ?
Or is it technical impossible, that he didn't made this.
}}}
 * Mail to Ernestine, dated 2010-03-24 from (A) (also to be part of the Deliberations)
{{{
From https://wiki.cacert.org/Arbitrations/Training/Lesson09  for the init
mailing
of arbitration cases:

"It is presumed that you, respondent <present or previous board member>,
accept Arbitration under the terms of the CAcert Community Agreement and
Dispute Resolution Policy, by presence and voting in committee motions
m20070918.2, m20070918.3 and m20070918.4 (see section Risks, Liabilities,
and Obligations of http://wiki.cacert.org/TopMinutes-20070917 ). If you
disagree with this presumption, please reply to this email within the next
7 days." 

... is the only path ....

If you add Assurances, you have 2 checkboxes:

1. I believe that the assertion of identity I am making is correct,
complete and verifiable. I have seen original documentation attesting to
this identity. I accept that the CAcert Arbitrator may call upon me to
provide evidence in any dispute, and I may be held responsible.

2. I have read and understood the Assurance Policy and the Assurance
Handbook and am making this Assurance subject to and in compliance with
the policy and handbook.

The Assurance CAP form (TTP form not checked so far), says instead:
- I am a CAcert Community Member, have passed the Assurance Challenge, and
have been assured with at least 100
Assurance Points.

CAcert Community Member implys CCA agreement

The website form relates to AP only. No CCA agreement is needed here.

CCA agreement is probably needed after the CCA rollout patches are
implemented by creating or renewing certs. But this isn't
currently in effect.

CCA agreement will be requested if you create an account.
But you can assume, that Robert had his account a time before
CCA comes in effect

If he didn't received assurances since starting CCA, he probably
never accepted CCA in a written form.
Last assurances received Sept. 2007

CCA in effect: 
https://wiki.cacert.org/TopMinutes-20070917
m20070918.4: The Registered User Agreement as discussed and modified is
promoted to DRAFT status as written in the (not yet approved) Policy on
Policies, and is therefore working policy for the community. The period of
DRAFT for this document is until the AGM.

Last 2 assurances received:  2007-09-21 and 2007-09-24
As there are no updated CAP forms available at this
time ... the Assurances were made probably w/o the CCA acceptance.
This becomes an issue after May 2008 ...

So the board that were present at the meeting and voted for CCA becomes
the main track

Meeting called to order 2007-09-17 09:20. Present: (Board) Greg Rose,
Robert Cruikshank, Evaldo Gardenali, (Advisory) Jens Paul, Teus Hagen, Ian
Grigg.
https://wiki.cacert.org/TopMinutes-20070917
}}}
 * Mail from Mario, dated 2010-03-24
{{{
But this is more another way around. R would need to name a proxy. I am 
not sure if it is allowed for the arbitrator to just seek one on his own 
(what in the policy are you referring to?).
}}}
 * Mail from (C3), dated 2010-04-12
{{{
I would appreciate an email officially answering this question. Until 
now I have only received a back-channel message (On IRC, 
arbitrator->Michael->me) that it was ok.
(Another arbitrator advised against it in an email to me directly.)

Reply send to support with "[s20100409.88]" somewhere in the subject 
line would be best.
Or you can enter a notice in s20100408.79 directly. (If you can get to 
it that is.)
}}}
 * (A): Answer to (C3)'s mail, dated 2010-04-12
{{{
An answer to your dispute filing question [s20100409.88] is given thru the intermediate ruling #4 in this case I've sent last night.

"As (R1) has an unknown count of TTP assurances given, the TTP assured users will loose all their points if the account will be terminated. This is, and will be not be an interest of the CAcert community. So therefor I order that an account deletion will be no option in this case. But the respondent should not use his account any longer. So therefor in a first execution step, the account needs to be locked."

Also written within the Deliberations to this case as a direction to this answer.

A more detailed answer is currently impossible as of the complexity of this case w/o the closing ruling.
}}}

==== Informations about 'old' TTP program ====
 * [[FAQ/AssuranceInformationForTTP|FAQ Assurance Information For TTP]]
  * then to be included with the completed TTP forms and returned to CAcert Inc.
  * is this an indication of a CAcert Inc issue ?
 * [[TTP|Overview over old TTP program]]
 * Its assumable, that a TTPadmin is the Secretary or Public Officer of CAcert Inc. (see above), as all TTP forms have to be sent to the AU address
 * Some answers are given thru [[PolicyDrafts/TTPAssurerCheck|TTP Assurer Check]] (TTP admin) (TTP Assurance Policy - v0.2 (2008-05-30))

== Deliberations ==

  '''There are several questions that araises with this arbitration case.'''

 1. What are the rules, policys under which (R1) acted as the TTPadmin ?
 2. Does (R1) followed those rules ?
 3. As AP comes to Draft, how was this TTP program affected by this new policy ?
 4. When becomes (R1) aware, about Policy change ?

  '''Further questions that araises in the period of investigations in this case:'''

 5. What was the former concept of the TTP program ?
 6. How this was implemented into the system ?
 7. How was the data inserted into the system ?
 8. If an arbitration participient doesn't answer any question. How this affects the CCA ? DRP ? and probably the account of an user ?

  '''Further questions that araises in a global view:'''

 9. What are the interests of CAcert Inc. and the CAcert community about this case and how the ruling affected those interests ?   
   
This arbitration case is a walk thru the CAcert history upto currently activitys regarding the TTP program.

==== Questions 1 to 5 ====

Back to the beginnings, CAcert builds programs to seed the CAcert deserts.
 * Assurance Events
 * TTP program
 * Super-Assurers

The effectiveness of Assurance Events is not that likely, because it needs resources to travel to events, and needs interested people to meet at those events. The assurance points that can be received are small, sometimes not
enough to reach the 100 points level, the level before the CATS test to become an assurer. The essential part to increase the user count.

The TTP program is sometimes the only option in a desert, where no Assurer can travel to, to meet the interested people. So therefor this program is an essential program for CAcert.

The Super-Assurers program is an addtl. instrument, to bring people upto a level, to assure others. To seed CAcert deserts.

This was the view from the 'old' days.

Then, with p20080712.1 Assurance Policy comes to Draft and therefor binding and with p20090105.2 Assurance Policy reaches POLICY state. As AP doesn't include the special assurance programs TTP program and Super-Assurers, so both special programs are out of service from one day to the next - theoreticly

As it tooks about 1 year, that the Community still tooks notice about the AP in effect, also the special assurance programs didn't get noticed about this shift in the global Assurance program.
 
From the mandate, to start an Audit, Policy work started to form policys for several areas, so that those areas can be audited. To get this project running, policys doesn't cover all areas from the beginning. So also TTP program was not included to the Assurance Policy and therefor frozen until a subsidary policy is written and pushed
at least to Draft.

As long the community didn't noticed that AP was in effect until mid of 2009, so nobody noticed that AP frozes also the TTP program.

The Assurers still becomes aware about the AP in effect starting with the ATE events spring 2009. Since than, also the Arbitration is under fire with dispute filings. A signal, that the Assurers becoming
aware of the Policys in effect.

The special Assurance programs are not yet affected thru the regular assurer community and therefor out of view for most of the community. The way, the old board handled the Audit, it also handled the Policy work.
Maybe it was a lack of communication, maybe it was the missing activity ... This doesn't change the result ... the TTP program still runs not noticed by the board, not noticed by the TTP admin.

As long as there still not exists any TTP policy, the procedures to appoint an TTP admin can be assumed as the appointment of all other Officers and Roles thru a Board motion. The appointment of the TTP admin cannot be found in the history records. The only indication is Guillaumes statement.

The only available info about the TTP program is the TTP policy proposal dated May 30th, 2008
 * https://wiki.cacert.org/PolicyDrafts/TTPAssurerCheck
  * Under "§ 3a - Persons for TTP Assurance Verification" section there is a definition about "Persons for TTP Assurance Verification" but the document gives no answer if this is the TTP admin or not.

In practice Robert gots an appointment from the Board or he got this job from Duane.

As long i didn't got answers from Robert directly, I have to assume, that he acted under Boards decision while doing the TTP admin work aside the Public Officers role and the Treasurer role.

Remembering about the first dispute filing a20090518.1 that was merged into this case, gives the date the first time Robert could get the first notice, that the TTP program maybe frozen. As long as he acted under the Board authority, he still continued with his dutys as TTP admin, as board didn't decided otherwise.

The history log of former arbitration case a20090518.1 doesn't show any signs, that the initial mailing has been started before mid of Nov 2009.

In the meanwhile board runs a motion, that all special assurance programs are frozen: m20090912.1 that freezes this program and m20090914.2 take it in effect (mid Sept. 2009).

So the next action item was about end of November, beginning December 2009 by picking up those TTP program frozen cases, and starting with the intermediate ruling #1, to inform a) the community, that the TTP program
is frozen, b) to inform all interested people into the TTP program, that the program is frozen and c) to inform the TTP admin that the program is frozen.

There is no indication, that the notification was sent before 2009-12-04 to the TTP admin Robert. So here we have a paradoxon, that Robert acted against AP by issueing points as TTP admin, but also following the Board order he was appointed for back in the 'old' days.

By sending the notification to the TTP admin and also publishing the boards motion, that all special assurance programs are frozen, one now could subordinate the accused knowledge about the frozen program.

The last TTP assurances given is dated November 11th, 2009. So this relates to the activitys by starting this arbitration case.

==== Questions 6 + 7 ====

By starting the investigations about the TTP program, I'm running into a problem to understand, how the TTP points are transfered into the system by the TTP admin.

Back to the 'old' days, the concept was to give the TTP admin 200 points and set the TTP admin flag onto the user account. So he is able to add TTP assurances into the system with type "TTP assurance".

On a review over the Assurances given by Robert, the records indicates the assurance type "Face-2-Face" meetings with a notification set into the locations field that those assurances are TTP assurances while Robert has
only 150 assurance points and no TTPadmin flag set.

So here Robert did falsery assurances by entering the TTP related assurances as regular assurances into the system under the 'old' design build by the software developers. But thus was never communicated, nor described in any document (lack of policy, interpretation of source code).

As the transfered assurance points are not added AP conform, those assurances are probably invalid. But thus then also imply all assurances between 2008 (AP comes to policy) and about mid 2009 are invalid as long as nobody takes care about AP.

==== Question 8 + 9 ====

As the history log shows, Robert has been emailed several times over the last 3,5 months. No response so far. Also a deadline passed w/o response.

This raises the question, what action to take next.

 * CCA 3.5 Communication
  * ... Notifications to you are sent by CAcert to the primary email address registered with your account. You are responsible for keeping your email account in good working order and able to receive emails from CAcert.

  * Arbitration is generally conducted by email.

 * and DRP 2.1  Authority
  * The Board of CAcert and the Users vest in Arbitrators full authority to hear disputes and deliver rulings which are binding on CAcert and the Users.

 * and an implication of the 2.6 Remedies and the Arbitration Act.  In short: if a user refuses to respond, the termination of the account is the next step.

An account termination affects also the unknown, but heavy count of TTP assured users. The loss of those users cannot be the interest of CAcert and the community. So therefor, thus needs attention in the ruling.

The outcome of the question: 'Does (R1) accepted CCA / DRP yet before' makes no difference if he yet accepted the CCA or not. Within the upcoming CCA rollout program, all members will be informed about the existing CCA as every arbitration participient will be informed about. And also arbitrators has to check if there is a CCA / DRP acceptance beforehand an arbitration starts. So, if a member doesn't agree to the CCA or doesn't respond to the acceptance request will automaticly result in a membership termination.

The arbitration case started under the [[Arbitrations/Training/Lesson09|Presumptions - CCA / DRP Acceptance]] "It is presumed that you, respondent <present or previous board member>, accept Arbitration under the terms of the CAcert Community Agreement and Dispute Resolution Policy, by presence and voting in committee motions m20070918.2, m20070918.3 and m20070918.4 (see section Risks, Liabilities, and Obligations of http://wiki.cacert.org/TopMinutes-20070917 )."

The membership termination follows the 'Delete my Account' procedure with all the side effects that this case has. DRP 2.2 Preliminaries says 'Participating Users may not resign until the completion of the case.'. As long (R1) didn't resigned by himself, this part of DRP doesn't affects an arbitratos ruling.

There are other actions running, that may affects the account termination:
 * TTP assured users
 * handover of TTP CAP forms
 * handover of Public Officers material from the old to the new board
As long, as there are no infos available, an account termination needs to be made with consideration.
So an account termination in this case has to follow the procedure outlined as 'Delete an Account with Assurances given'.

==== Question 10 ====

The answers found by Questions 1 to 5 relates to a user, bound by the CCA from within the Community. But in fact, Robert was a Board member (also community member). But the question that araises here is:
 * did act Robert as a Board Member by entering the TTP assurances into the system ?
 * or did Robert act as a community member ?

 * This question relates to the CAcert structure.
  * As long Robert acted as Board Member he probably stands under CAcert Inc. rules. CAcert Inc. before AGM-2010-01-30 has as Arbitration system the default Arbitration system from NSW Australia.

  * After AGM-2010-01-30 and the AGM motion agm20100130.4.1 https://wiki.cacert.org/AGM/RuleChange/OurDisputeResolution the Arbitration system has been changed to the Arbitration system of CAcert community.

The disputes both starts back in 2009 (this arbitration case and the merged one), so probably this case is to handle by the former Arbitration system of CAcert Inc. ?

CAcert and the structure

The Systems are under CAcert Inc. authority. TTPadmin is no critical system admins role. TTPadmin is part of the Assurance (RA) system. Like the Assurance Officer, TTPadmin is an addtl. role to enter TTP assurances
into the system. Like other Officers and Roles, board appoints Officers and Roles by board motions. But this doesn't influences the Officers work to be a community work and acting according to the Policys.

Special interest becomes the state of the TTP admin, as it was implicitely the person getting the Postal Box of the association so the Public Officer.

The Public Officer is the first person, who gets the TTP CAP forms in hand. But thus doesn't implicites that the Public Officer also have to enter the TTP assurances into the system. This role can be delegated by sending those TTP CAP forms to the TTP admin(s).

As long thus hasn't been written into a policy or procedure its worth to debate about this issue, but its interesting to this arbitration case and needs a result to decide the further proceeding. CAcert Inc Arbitration
system or the Communitys arbitration system ...

=== Intermediate Ruling 4 ===
Regarding Questions 8 + 9, I hereby state that (R1) didn't follow the rules
 * CCA 3.5 Communication
 * and DRP 2.1 Authority
of the CAcert community under this arbitration by not responding to any mails sent to him.

This is not an statement of a debt or not relating to this arbitration issues. This alone relates to the non-respondence in an arbitration case.

Therefor I hereby rule, that the account of respondent (R1) has to be locked immediately.

As (R1) has an unknown count of TTP assurances given, the TTP assured users will loose all their points if the account will be terminated. This is, and will be not be an interest of the CAcert community. So therefor I order that an account deletion will be no option in this case. But the respondent should not use his account any longer. So therefor in a first execution step, the account needs to be locked.

Following the 'Delete an Account with Assurances given' I order further, that the respondent has to handover the TTP CAP forms in a sealed envelop to the arbitrator in this case.

The cacert email address should be removed.

Further actions with this account should not be taken, until further infos are available, how the renaming of the primary email adress affects the TTP assurances given and how the removal of the cacert email adress can be done without affecting the overall account.

Frankfurt/M., Apr 12th 2010

 * Execution request about intermediate ruling #4 to Support, dated 2010-04-12
{{{
Despite the fact, there is a 'Delete an Account with Assurances given' intermediate ruling,  please don't hijack the account at the moment, until further infos about how to execute the ruling and how the execute steps affects the account in question except the execution steps below:

@Support -> Execution order:
please lock the account, so that the user cannot longer use this account.

User:  ...  Primary Email ...

Please send me a reply once this execution step has been executed.
}}}

 * Mail from (Support), dated 2010-04-12
{{{
Roberts account should now be blocked.
}}}

 * (A) questions regarding intermediate ruling #4 exec steps, dated 2010-04-12
{{{
regarding arbitration case a20091118.1 intermediate ruling #4 there are still two open questions regarding removal of the email address  <email address> from the system.

1. Did the handover of the Public Officer paperwork finished yet ?
   Is therefor the @cacert.org email adress needed ?

2. For the removal of the email address from Robert's account,
   is therefor a hijacking of the account needed ?
   or can this been handled thru the default Support Engineer's
   console like revoke an assurance ?
}}}

 * Mail from (Support), dated 2010-04-12
{{{
> 2. For the removal of the email address from Robert's account,
>    is therefor a hijacking of the account needed ?
>    or can this been handled thru the default Support Engineer's
>    console like revoke an assurance ?

That seems to require hijacking.
}}}

 * Mail from (Iang), dated 2010-07-06 (partly)

{{{
>     3. Who has decided about this procedure in the past ? (before TTP
> program was frozen)

http://svn.cacert.org/CAcert/CAcert_Inc/Board/board_review_actions_20040820_20070525.html
}}}

=== Intermediate Ruling 5 ===
With the CCA acceptance received by Robert Cruishank I hereby withdraw the intermediate ruling #4 dated Apr 12th 2010 and order Support to undo the account locking actions followed by the intermediate ruling #4 and accept Robert's statement, that he has done his duties in good faith.

Frankfurt/Main, 2010-08-30

 * Execution request about intermediate ruling #5 to Support, dated 2010-08-30
  {{{
Following the intermediate ruling #5 dated 2010-08-30
please unlock the account:

Name:           Robert C
Primary Email:  <anonymized>

No further action had been made since intermediate ruling #4
so the email address <anonymized> should be available again.

Please provide me with an execution report.
}}}
 * Execution request report regarding intermediate ruling #5 rcvd from Support, dated 2010-08-30
  {{{
executed as requested.
}}}

== Discovery II ==
 * Reviewing all the facts, there are some open questions
  * How are the TTP assurances entered into the system ?
   * TTP Assurances given
    * by Duane G, former TTP admin
    * by (R), taking the role of TTP admin from Duane.
  * A subset of TTP assurances given are entered as Face-2-Face meetings into the system. Are there all TTP assurances entered this way into the system ?
 * 2010-09-01 (Support): sends list to (A): result is curious ...
  * many empty assurance method fields and
  * many ''unknown''
  * some ''Trusted Third Party'' listings.
  * This result needs a deeper inspection about the undef count of empty or unknown assurance types
  * probably raw SQL query needed ?!?
  * New [[https://bugs.cacert.org/view.php?id=855|bug # 855]]
  * Notary lists Method as type enum, is Method based on numbers ?!? Method lists plain text methods
  * results from recursive developments:
   * /pages/wot/6.php includes list of available assurance methods
   * database table notaries has method field type enum
   * for TTP enum has: "Trusted Third Parties"
   * Script has "Trusted 3rd Parties"
   * as "Trusted Third Parties" doesn't match "Trusted 3rd Parties" records becomes "" (empty) values
   * first listing of "Trusted Third Parties": 2005-03-19 (1), 2003-02-26 (2)
   * last listing of "Trusted Third Parties": 2005-05-02 (1), 2005-06-03 (2)
 * 2010-09-10 (A): req to (Critical sysadmins)
  {{{
You've mentioned regarding Software-Assessment-Project and repositories, you have a tarball archive of the webdb sources ?

is it easy to get a history overview on a special script file ?

The script in question is
/pages/wot/6.php

with the strings
"Trusted Third Parties"  vs.  "Trusted 3rd Parties"

hint: database enum field method searches for the string
      "Trusted Third Parties"
      but source code has "Trusted 3rd Parties" as string.
      This is current problem, where method fields becomes
      empty. So probably this bug is very old ...
      But, there are some records with the String
      "Trusted Third Parties" in the database ....

from first quick analyze:
first         last          string
2003-02-26    2005-06-03    Trusted Third Parties
2005-03-19    2005-05-02    Trusted Third Parties
                |
    +-----------+
    |
    V
2005-10-31    2006-09-06    <empty>
2005-07-20    2008-03-12    <empty>

So the interesting source code changes
are between 
2005-06-03  as latest "Trusted Third Parties"
  and
2005-07-20  as first <empty>


Can you please provide me with the info
if its possible to get the history info
of the file 
/pages/wot/6.php
in the timeframe between 2005-06-03 and
2005-07-20  ???
}}}

 * 2010-09-11 (Critical sysadmins): sends repository history log of /pages/wot/6.php
  {{{
/pages/wot/6.php

----------------------------
revision 1.17
date: 2005/07/14 19:56:28;  author: root;  state: Exp;  lines: +1 -0
updates
----------------------------
revision 1.16
date: 2005/07/01 13:12:14;  author: root;  state: Exp;  lines: +2 -2
updates lang+bug fixes
----------------------------
revision 1.15
date: 2005/06/12 03:51:48;  author: root;  state: Exp;  lines: +19 -1
dynamic pdf generation + translation updates + slight bug fix
----------------------------
revision 1.14
date: 2005/06/09 15:21:55;  author: root;  state: Exp;  lines: +2 -2
lang updates

----------------------------
revision 1.13
date: 2005/03/18 16:08:22;  author: root;  state: Exp;  lines: +2 -2
tverify updates


The string "Trusted Third Parties" does not appear anywhere in the CVS log
}}}

 * 2010-09-11 (A): Analyze and new req to (Critical sysadmins)
  {{{
ok, checked for
     "Trusted Third Parties"
vs.  "Trusted 3rd Parties"

6.php displays "Trusted 3rd Parties" forever.
So it was no change made
from      "Trusted Third Parties"
to        "Trusted 3rd Parties"
in this area ...
but somewhere a translation from
source code string    "Trusted 3rd Parties"
needs to be made to result in
database "method" field entry     "Trusted Third Parties"

checked further source codes.
The link is to source code file:
/www/wot.php

and at line 296 / 297
i've found:

		} else if($_SESSION['profile']['ttpadmin'] == 1 && ($_POST['method'] == 'Trusted 3rd Parties' || $_POST['method'] == 'Trusted third Parties')) {
			$query .= ",\n`method`='Trusted Third Parties'";

so this is probably the translation code from source code to database
}}}

 * 2010-10-06 7 variants of TTP entered into the system has been identified
  || TTP variant || .. || awarded || points  || method                  || location || remarks                ||
  || 1           || .. || 0       || 0..150  || Trusted Third Parties   || <empty>  || webdb code before 2007 ||
  || 2           || .. || 0       || 0..150  || <empty>                 || <empty>  || [[https://bugs.cacert.org/view.php?id=855|bug# 855]] ||
  || 3           || .. || 0..150  || 0..150  || Face to Face Meeting    || TTP      || webdb code between 2007 and Oct 2009 ||
  || 4           || .. || 0..150  || 0..150  || Face to Face Meeting    || TPP      || TTP typo, webdb code between 2007 and Oct 2009 ||
  || 5           || .. || 0..150  || 0..150  || <empty>                 || <empty>  || [[https://bugs.cacert.org/view.php?id=855|bug# 855]] ||
  || 6           || .. || 0..150  || 0..35   || Face to Face Meeting    || TTP      || webdb code starting Oct 2009 ||
  || 7           || .. || 0..35   || 0..35   || <empty>                 || free text or empty || [[https://bugs.cacert.org/view.php?id=855|bug# 855]], current webdb code, results from catest1 ||

 * 2010-10-06 (MW) irc chat log with (PG) "new insights"
  * Notary table entries with '' (empty) or 'Unknown' relates to the TTP programm. There was some days where "TTP" wasn't available as assurance method and was not selectable, cause: missing permissions or value not available
  * some TTP assurances are entered as F2F (cause some users didn't got the selection box option for TTP method)
  * method='Unknown' and '' (empty) shouldn't exists, needs to be prevented by code (e.g. reasonable default value) for users who didn't select a method or did not get a selection box (Board, Support, ...)
  * Notary entries has been developed step by step. There was no master plan nor docu
   * (A) awarded field added between 2006-04-06 and 2006-08-28

 * 2010-10-06 (A): phone talk with (C) about a procedure to correct error records relating TTP assurances. (C) suggested a 4 step procedure
  * A procedure to correct 7 variants of TTP assurance methods in the production system (normalize) should be:
   1. backup of current database (table notary)
   2. duplicate affected record
   3. modify affected records copy to normalisation standard (method TTP)
   4. set effected original records to expire (date < today())

 . 2010-11-11 (R): sends a list of undef assurance methods in database and their real relation by CAP forms
  || Awarded || Points  || Location  || Method  || confirmed to ||
  || 0       || 150     || <empty>   || <empty> || TTP          ||
  || 150     || 150     || some text || <empty> || F2F          ||
  || 35      || 0       || some text || <empty> || F2F          ||
  || 0       || 60      || <empty>   || F2F     || TTP          ||
  || 0       || 90, 150 || <empty>   || Unknown || TTP          ||


== Ruling ==

Ruling covers 4 questions:

 . i. Has respondent acted against CAcert rules ?

 . ii. if assurances were made falsery, how to handle TTP assurance points`?

 . iii. Review of the intermediate rulings

On doing analyze about this case, there was a huge count of assurances discovered that doesn't conform to the standard. So the database content seems to be corrupt or doesn't state the correct state of assurances. So the forth question araises:

 . iv. What to do with the data with unclear state ?

=== Question i. Has respondent acted against CAcert rules ? ===

  . This question cannot answered simply yes or no.
  . To get an answer to this question I have to look on communications within CAcert.
  . How long does it took to install AP and when does AP get pushed out to community ?
  . How does the assurers becomes aware that they'll have to take care about AP ?
  . CAcert has several communication channels, but no one is enough to get all members informed.
  . Have a look at the CCA Rollout problem, and you're becoming an idea how complicated it is to inform each member about a special issue. So also stopping the "old" TTP program by a board motion isn't enough, that the community gets informed that the TTP program is frozen.
  . It needs an active deployment, blog- wiki- posted, posted by mailings, stopped by disabling software execution.
  . In 2009 the TTP program was stopped by AP, but nobody realizes that the program was stopped.
  . So board decided to start a board motion, to signal to the community that the program was frozen.
  . But this wasn't enough. Users coming to the CAcert site saw no info about a frozen TTP program.
  . So users continued using this program. And the public officer received TTP assurances over TTP assurances and entered it into the system as he has adviced to do so, nobody stopped him to do so.
  . The board motion was the first official signal, that the TTP program was frozen. Later on pushed by the Intermediate ruling regarding this arbitration, to add a warning note onto all TTP related websites and also write a blog article to make it officialy.
  . Someone can argue, but respondent also voted in AP. As said before, nobody still noticed how AP influenced other programs.
  . CAcert's principle is ''training''. A training didn't happen on TTP program. Respondent got the task
  . from Duane back in about 2003, 2004 and did it his own way, as best he could.
  . A Software bugs prevents entering TTP assurances into the system with the "TTP Assurance" flag set.
  . So respondents workaround was to enter TTP assurances marked F2F but with a note in locations field
  . like the order to add (+CCA) for Assurers who assured someone with the CCA on the CAP form or to
  . enter Assurances into the system under PoJAM, to add (+PoJAM) into the locations field, as this is
  . the only one freetext field, that can hold such addtl. infos. Attempts were made to write a subpol under
  . Assurance policy for the TTP program, but the attempts first results in the TTP-assisted-assurance
  . Policy autmn 2010. Respondent has only AP at hand to follow. AP doesn't include an explicit statement about
  . TTP assurances. So this program, also the Super-Assurers program hasn't been explicitly stated to be under
  . AP regime. So first, early 2009 Assurers becomes aware, what it does mean, assurances conducted under AP.
  . At no time, Public Officer was noticed, to stop the TTP program. No notificiation to the website was
  . added, all seems to the public, that the TTP program is active. This first changed with this
  . Arbitration case intermediate ruling #1 dated 2009-12-04.
  . Despite the fact, the discussion about AP and the frozen special programs was all behind the scene.
  . Like all other communication problems within CAcert, its real possible, that respondent doesn't heard anything
  . about the discussions around AP and TTP program handling.
  . We don't sue our Assurers on a failure at the very first time, we first take the principle
  . training, to advice the assurers about a mistake they've made. So I also going this way in this case.
  . The first date, respondent get officialy been noticed was the date between board motion and the first intermediate ruling to this arbitration case:
  . between 2009-09-14 (Board motion) and 2009-12-04 (Intermediate Ruling #1).
  . Last TTP assurance entered into the system is dated: 2009-11-11, so is within this timerange.
  . Thru 3rd party channel, the contact to respondent has been established around August 2010 and I received a statement from respondent "I have done my duties in good faith."
  . Later on respondent shows his will to assist in analyzing the database structure problem.
  . So here I came to the following ruling:
  . Respondent acted in his duties in good faith since he got the task to handle the old TTP program until he gets noticed about the frozen TTP program and stopped entering TTP assurances.

=== Question ii. if assurances were made falsery, how to handle TTP assurance points ? ===

  . The question "how to handle points from old Assurance programs" is a general problem.
  . TTP records aren't invalid only 'cause respondent entered it into the system, at a time AP was in effect. The overall sea shift within CAcert from the time without policies to a policy driven CA can be seen as an intermediate timeframe. It tooks about 1 year to push out AP to the community, so are the Assurance points Assurers entered into the system all invalid from mid 2008 until spring 2009 ?
  . The simple answer is: No
  . Assurers checked Assurees, verified their identity. So this is still valid.
  . What Assurers probably not checked, that the new members are bound to the CCA and therefor binding into Arbitration, and also becoming aware of the Liability of 1000 Euro.
  . But this is also another big task CAcert has to go, to inform all members about the CAcert Community Agreement and give them the chance to accept or disagree.
  . So here we can go the way, to keep the current state intact and wait onto the CCA rollout that is on the task list on the way to become ''audit ready''.
  . The are still open discussions behind the scene, how to move forward with all the old points entered into the system. Like the ''Thawte points'' and the old ''TTP program'' points and the old ''Super-Assurances'' points, mostly added with 150 Assurance/Experience points, that contradicts AP with a max of 50 points per assurance.
  . So here the discussion goes the way to bring this before policy group, to build a subpol for all the special and old assurance programs and how to handle the points, having in mind, to get all these points verifyable for Audit purposes.
  . But here it opens up another problem: CAP forms have to be destroyed after 7 years. If assurance points are still valid in the system, how an arbitrator can verify an assurance after 7 years without the chance to get a copy of the CAP form scanned ?
  . There still exists many open questions, without an answer yet.
  . To move forward with all these questions is to move it into policy group as these topics aren't covered by AP nor by any other policy. A fade out isn't defined currently, so the time doesn't helps here. This is a real policy group issue.
  . For the current state, all old assurance programs points are still valid but this doesn't cover the state in 1, 2 or 3 years.

=== Question iii. Review of the intermediate rulings ===

  . Starting with this arbitration case, the situation on TTP program was unclear.
  . AP was in effect, but publicitly the TTP program was still active.
  . No signal that the program was frozen, no information that the program was stopped.
  . The only sign of activity was made by the board with the board motions in September 2009.
  . But with CAcert's communication problem, to push the information out to the community, these motion still gets unnoticed to the public. So first, this Arbitration intermediate ruling with the order to board to write a blog article about the frozen TTP program, with the order to the critical admins to modify the webdb pages regarding TTP program becomes an publicitly noticed signal "TTP program is frozen" From current state, this was a needed task, that should have been done, at the time AP comes in effect, but hasn't been made. Like the long waiting pushing of AP to the community, this task of intermediate ruling was necessary, to also push out the frozen special assurance programs out to the community. So therefor I today confirm this intermediate ruling to be neccessary at that time beeing.

  . Intermediate ruling #2 dated Dec 4th 2009 was a split of this Arbitration case into 3 individual dispute filing parts. From current state, this ruling was to get these individual dispute filings handled. From current state I see it was handled correctly and followed DRP. As this special case, to split one dispute filing into several sub parts hasn't been foreseen by policy group writing DRP, the seperation can be added as a Preliminaries step with the Arbitrators autority. As the seperated Arbitration cases hasn't been dismissed but also has been handled under DRP as a seperated case, this action taken conforms to DRP.

  . Intermediate ruling #3 was a followup of intermediate ruling #1 dated Dec 4th 2009 for completeness of intermediate ruling #1.

  . From a first attempt to find a ruling in this Arbitration case, I've ended with the respondents unresponsiveness. So therefor added intermediate ruling #4 dated Apr 12th 2010 to lock the users account. At this time, respondent violates CCA 3.5 Communitcation and DRP 2.1 Authority. Later on, I've made attempts to get in contact with the respondent. Using 3rd party channels I've got in contact with the respondent and received responses from respondent. So therefor I could withdraw the intermediate ruling #4 dated Apr 12th 2010 with the intermediate ruling #5 dated 2010-08-30. DRP has been followed, as at this time DRP 2.2 Preliminaries has been established "The Arbitrator confirms that all parties accept the forum of dispute resolution." that has been assumed on starting this arbitration case, 'cause respondent was one of the participients at 2007 Pirmasens meeting, where CCA has been voted for and have been installed.
  . With furhter respondents assistance, some of the further open questions could be answered. Intermediate ruling #4 can be seen as a shot across the bows. Lesson learned by respondent to become active in some way, so intermediate ruling #5 was the followup, to unlock respondents account. Nothing wrong doing here. All under DRP.
  . So I confirm hereby users account state to be a regular members account, w/o any restrictions set (to be unlocked).
  . Conclusion: all intermediate rulings followed CCA, DRP and at their time of ruling the appropiate actions.

=== Question iv. What to do with the data with unclear state ? ===

  . The first indication that something goes wrong with the assurance methods and issueing assurance points was the addtl. initial dispute filing splitted into a seperate arbitration case [[Arbitrations/a20091118.5|a20091118.5]] and was handled there. On further discovery of respondents list of assurances given, to get an overview how an account termination may influence the WoT (this was at the time around before intermediate ruling #4 before date Apr 12th 2010), the list of assurances given shows a horrible state of data inconsistency. Many of assurance records displays a method of "unknown" and also "" (empty - assurance method undefined).
  . Another bulk of assurances are displayed as Face-2-Face assurances with locations field as comment field to be of type TTP assurances. From investigations, these entries are of assurance method "TTP".
  . The TTP assurance method was unusable caused by a software bug. So TTP assurer used a workaround to enter TTP assurances into the system. From the investigations, I hereby state, that the database content on Assurances is in an inconsistency state with an unknown but heavy count of falsery stored records. The Database needs an audit conform reorganisation process.
  . How this will be done I leave it open to the Software-Developers, Software-Assessment team, Software-Engineers and the critical team. But said, it has to be done, before audit starts.
  . eg One possible process could be, to mark the existing records as deleted by adding a corrected record into the system with a remark to be the reorg record, based on original record xyz. There have been identified at least 8 variants of TTP assurances entered into the system, that are not entered into the system with method type TTP (!).
  . As also an unknown count of user accounts state is based only on this assurance method, the state of the users account can be seen as undefined. This effects the WoT in a way that cannot be ignored.
  . So therefor I hereby order Software-Developers, Software-Assessment team, Software-Engineers and the critical team to form a "Database Reorg" project team and investigate for practicle solutions to solve this problem also in a way that is audit conform.
  . The "Database Reorg" project team should also invite Policy Group and Board to their discussions if it relates to a subpolicy that needs to be written or executional tasks needs to be started.
  . The order is about to present one or more possible, practicle solutions, Board or Policy Group can vote on. Probably also addtl. arbitration cases (Adhoc SQL queries for further investigations, Arbitration ruling about WoT side effects) needs to be initiated.
  . As this problem is not only a problem for the Software area, it also relates to other CAcert groups, all affected groups have to be contacted.

Frankfurt/Main, 2010-11-26


== Execution ==
 * 2010-11-26 (A): ruling sent to (C1), (C2), (C3), (R1), (Software-Assessors), (Criticalteam t/l), (CM)
 * 2010-11-26 (A): case closed

----

== Similiar Cases ==
|| [[Arbitrations/a20090518.1|a20090518.1]] || [[Arbitrations/a20090518.1|People is getting 150 points from TTP while the programme is frozen ]] ||

----
 . CategoryArbitration
 . CategoryArbCaseOtherAssurerErrors
 . CategoryArbCaseOthers