• Case Number: a20120305.2
• Status: running
• Claimant: CAcert (Support - originally filed by Marcus M)
• Respondent: Michal O.

• Initial Case Manager: AlexRobertson

• Case Manager: EvaStöwe

• Arbitrator: PietStarreveld

• Supervising Arbitrator: Eva Stöwe
• Date of arbitration start: 2016-10-17
• Date of ruling: 201Y-MM-DD
• Case closed: 201Y-MM-DD
• Complaint: CCA Violation
• Relief: unspecified

Before: Arbitrator PietStarrveld (A), Respondent: Michal O(R), Claimant: CAcert (C1), Case: a20120305.2

Former parties: Marcus M. for Support (C2).

History Log

• 2012-03-05 (issue.c.o) ticket s20111202.1464

• 2012-05-03 (iCM): added to wiki, request for CM / A
• 2012-05-04 (R): replied to initial mailing
• 2012-05-04 (iCM): responded to (R) advising case now in arbitration
• 2016-08-20 (board, support, arbitration): FrOSCon 2016 session:
  • case selected for review as it fits the review criteria
  • CAcert Support becomes new claimant (C1), original claimant dismissed (C2)
  • CAcert Support withdraws case as claimant
• 2016-09-25 (board): confirms the executive decisions taken during FrOSCon 2016 session by board motion m20160921.2

• 2016-10-16 (PietStarreveld): implement executive decisions taken during FrOSCon 2016 and send case review request to former reviewing members

• 2016-10-16 (EvaStöwe): will pick up case as CM and select PietStarreveld as Arbitrator (as he is in training and I'm tasked to supervise him, I'm also the suprvising Arbitrator of this case)

• 2016-10-17 (A): accepts case as Arbitrator [via voice tool]
• 2016-10-18 (CM): sends init mail to (C), (R) and (A)
• 2016-10-18 (CM): informs the persons priorly contacted for the case review that roles on arbitration side are clarified and that (A) now has authority to ask according questions
• 2016-10-19 (R): responds to init mail, to not want trouble and that he is sorry about the problem he made and that it was not on purpose. Repeats that he wants to get issue with suffix clarified

Link to Arbitration case a20120305.2 (Private Part), Access for (CM) + (A) only)

EOT Private Part

Original Dispute

• Original dispute (anonymized):

  As the claimat did not respond in the given time I ask to file a dispute
  against the user for a CCA violation not keeping his email adress in good
  order.

  CM Note: The reference to 'claimat' in the original dispute is probably just a typo and likely to have been intended as 'respondent'.

Discovery 1

The CCA violation dispute against R that Support filed on 2012-03-05 is the Original Dispute of this case (a20120305.2).

Its traces go back to earlier assurance revocation requests submitted to Support by two assurers of R. For the sake of clarity, these assurers will be referred to in this context as Assurer 1 and Assurer 2. Assurer 1 in his revocation request states that some data (i.e. the suffix) in the account that R has created isn't backed by the ID that R has shown during their face-to-face meeting. Assurer 2 in his revocation request refers to a precedents case and doesn't specify a particular reason for wanting to revoke the assurance over R.

Neither Assurer 1 nor Assurer 2 are currently mentioned as parties (claimants) in the Original Dispute underlying this case. Nor are they parties in any other open arbitration cases.

Apart from this case, R is currently not a party in any other open arbitration cases.

Before the CCA violation was filed by Support, the issue ticket bounced back and forth between Arbitration and Support several times. To help put the CCA violation dispute as filed by Support into perspective, the following table summarizes the relevant communications that were shared between various parties:

R's reply on 2012-05-04 to the initial arbitration case notification mail sent by iCM on 2012-05-03 constitutes evidence that R, contrary to the complaint in the CCA violation dispute filed by Support on 2012-03-05, apparently was 'keeping his email adress in good order'.

Discovery 2

FrOSCon 2016 session - future of 25 arbitration cases from leaving team members

At FrOSCon 2016 members of Arbitration, Board and Support took part in a session on possible withdrawal of cases by CAcert(Support)/CAcert and prior clarification about claimants. On 2016-08-23 the initial report of that FrOSCon 2016 session, Protocol - FrOSCon session - future of 25 arbitration cases from leaving team members, was posted on the board and arbitration mailing lists for review and discussion.

The executive "decisions" taken during the FrOSCon 2016 Session (and also regarding additional cases) were confirmed by board motion m20160921.2 on 2016-09-25:

Resolved, that board withdraws the cases as mentioned in the emails https://lists.cacert.org/wws/arc/cacert-board/2016-08/msg00009.html and https://lists.cacert.org/wws/arc/cacert-board/2016-08/msg00017.html acting for CAcert as claimant of that cases.

The detailed background, proceedings and the initial report of the FrOSCon 2016 session are publicly available as FrOSCon 2016 Session Report.

FrOSCon 2016 session - review of case a20120305.2 - "CCA Violation"

At the FrOSCon 2016 Session case a20120305.2 - "CCA Violation" was put up for review as all who were present at the session agreed that it fitted the criteria for review:

• dispute is filed by formerly active member
• dispute is filed as a role based dispute

For this case this meant that Support would now assume the role of claimant and that the original claimant should be considered as former claimant, having been dismissed from the dispute.

The initial subsequent review of this case at FrOSCon 2016 made Support decide to withdraw the case as claimant. This decision was based on the information that was available in the Public part of the case log at that time. Additional information from the Private part of the case log however emerged during the preparation of the FrOSCon 2016 session report. This additional information led to the suggestion to further review the case.

To enable all reviewers to have a proper view on what led to this case a summary of the relevant communications in this case has been added to the Public part of the case log (see above: Discovery 1).

Here's the relevant section of the FrOSCon 2016 report posted on the board and arbitration mailinglists on 2016-08-23:

5. https://wiki.cacert.org/Arbitrations/a20120305.2
-------------------------------------------------------------------
"CCA Violation"

 * summary of dispute:
"Account created by user contains data that are not met by CAP form nor
ID shown during face to face meeting."
This was filed after two members had contacted support about issues with
that assurance and when the member was not answering support

 * support:
a) there could be issues with email provider if someone does not answer
b) there is no requirement to answer support, only requirement to answer
arbitration
c) old assurances could sometimes be an issue, because AP (and CCA) was
installed only later and some points had to be clarified, first, this is
known and it's probably hard to get CAP forms or anything, now, if older
then 7 years
=> withdraw
 * board: ok

[note of [..] when preparing protocol:
In the discussion there was the assumption that the case was filed
because the member did not response to support, but some deeper reading
when preparing the protocol revealed something else. (There are multiple
somewhat unorthodox sorted mails in the private part of the case file
and not enough information in the public part.)
I suggest to review the decision because of this.]

FrOSCon 2016 session - review of case a20120305.2 - "CCA Violation" - comments received

The review of this case as reported on the board and arbitration mailinglists didn't lead to comments.

Ruling

Execution

Precedents Cases Mentioned

Similiar Cases

---

• CategoryArbitration

• CategoryArbCaseCCAViolation