• Arbitrations
• a20120126.1

• Case Number: a20120126.1
• Status: closed
• Claimants: Nick B.
• Respondents: CAcert

• initial Case Manager: BernhardFröhlich

• Case Manager: BernhardFröhlich

• Arbitrator: UlrichSchroeter

• Date of arbitration start: 2012-03-06
• Date of ruling: 2012-03-06
• Case closed: 2012-03-06
• Complaint: Please add my full middlename to my account
• Relief: TBD

Before: Arbitrator UlrichSchroeter (A), Respondent: CAcert (R), Claimant: Nick B. (C), Case: a20120126.1

History Log

• 2012-01-26 (issue.c.o) case s20120126.7

• 2012-03-05 (iCM): added to wiki, request for CM / A
• 2012-03-06 (A): I'll take care about this case as (A) and appoint (CM)
• 2012-03-06 (A): initial mailing to (C) sent

Original Dispute, Discovery (Private Part)

• Link to Arbitration case a20120126.1 (Private Part)

EOT Private Part

Discovery

• Support proposes a precedence case for similar name changes

• Infos sent in previous case a20090702.1 confirms (C)'s claims. But this is based on Id doc scans only, received by (A) of case a20090702.1

• The running case is no appeal to previous closed case a20090702.1, instead it continues where case a20090702.1 could not continue: establishing the facts of (C)'s claim. This also will answer the question about potential CoI by (A) in this case. Arbitration participients agreed in a20090702.1 to close the case, to be opened as new case when (C) has found the assurers who can confirm (C)'s claim.

• List of 5 assurers added to dispute filing, who can probably confirm (C)'s claim

• effected policies: AP, AH, PracticeOnNames

Ruling

• The general standard in assurance is:
  1. We assure only names, that we can find in at least one ID document.
  2. Document missing names on the CAP.
  3. Transliterations are accepted
  4. Case-Insensitive
  5. Its allowed to reduce information, but its prohibited to add information.
• The running case is a case that relates to the latter definition.
  • "Its allowed to reduce information, but its prohibited to add information." means, if you cannot find this addtl. information in at least one Id document.
  • A member who only added his givenname and surname to his online account, but can present a middlename in all his Id documents, can request a name change to add his middlename to his online account. This isn't prevented by the short rule "... but its prohibited to add information".
• As long a missing middlename in the members online account is requested to be added later and can be confirmed by at least 2 experienced assurers (or related count of assurers with a sum of upto 50 assurance points), Support is allowed to change the members name in the members account by request.
  • With 50 assurance points a member is allowed to use his name in a certificate. So therefor the count of assurance points received by the name in question should be seen as an addtl. measure in the confirmation process.
  • This means: The assurers who confirms claimants claim, should in sum have reached 50 assurance points. If the assurers are all unexperienced assurers who can give only 10 assurance points, the confirmation needs to be requested to 5 unexperienced assurers.
• I hereby allow the Support-Engineer to send requests to the assurers (by source of following order)
  1. that is presented to the Support-Engineer in the dispute filing by the claimant
  2. that is sent as a list by the claimant after a request by Support-Engineer to the claimant
  3. that Support can find in the received assurances list of the member
     • to confirm claimants claim to add his middlename to his account.
• It can be assumed, that newer assurances includes the middlename documented by the assurers where in contrast older assurances probably misses the middlename especialy if its an older member account and the assurances were given before Assurance Policy and the progress in handling names has not been fully pushed out to the community in ATE events. So therefor I conclude, that assurers who didn't documented the middlename on their CAP form can be sent an info, but this is to be read optional and not to read as an advise.
• Once the evidence has been established, Support-Engineer shall add the middlename(s) as requested by the claimant to the members account.
• I hereby set this ruling to be precedent for further similar cases.

Frankfurt/Main, 2012-03-06

Execution

• 2012-03-06 (A): sent ruling + exec request to (C), (Support), (CM), requesting exec report to (Support)
• 2012-03-06 (Support): [s20120306.4], exec report: name changed, confirmation by 2 assurers
• 2012-03-06 (A): final notification to (C), (CM), (Support), case closed.

Similiar Cases

• a20090702.1

  Request to add full middle name to account

Post arbitration actions

Case done according or similar to this arbitration case

• CategoryArbitration

• CategoryArbCaseAccountDataNameModificationsRequested