Arbitrations/a20120506.1

Case Number: a20120506.1
Status: running
Claimants: Iang
Respondents: Iang, Board
Case Manager: AlexRobertson
Arbitrator: UlrichSchroeter
Date of arbitration start: 2012-05-07
Date of ruling: 201Y-MM-DD
Case closed: 201Y-MM-DD
Complaint: External dispute re privacy issue
Relief: TBD

Before: Arbitrator UlrichSchroeter (A), Respondent: Ian G (R), Board (R2), Claimant: Ian G (C), Case: a20120506.1

History Log

2012-05-06 (issue.c.o) case s20120506.48
2012-05-07 (CM): added to wiki
2012-05-07 (A): I'll take care of this case as (A)
2012-05-07 (CM): I'll take care of this case as (CM)
2012-05-07 (A): adding (Board) as addtl. potential party to this case
2012-05-07 (CM): Initmailing to (C)(R)(R2)(A)
2012-05-07 (A): Questions to (C)(R1)(R2)
2012-05-07 (A): *under seal*
2012-05-07 (A): *under seal*
2012-05-07 (C): sent Reply to Questions
2012-05-08 (A): interview by irc with (C) (2 h)
2012-05-09 (A): interview by irc with (C) (1 h)
2012-05-09 (A): response to (C)'s reply dated 2012-05-07
2012-05-10 (A): intermediate ruling#1, sent to (C), (R2), (CM)
2012-05-10 (A): intermediate ruling#2 *under seal*
2012-05-10 (A): exec req following intermediate ruling#2 *under seal*, executed
2012-05-14 (C): question regarding intermediate ruling #2
2012-05-14 (C): report on current activities regarding this case #1
2012-05-14 (A): response to (C)'s question
2012-05-16 (CM): found one more reference
2012-05-16 (A): answer to (C) with influence rating
2012-05-16 (CM): some comments
2012-06-16 (3rd party): [s20120616.186] dispute filing a20120616.1 Request to unseal a20120506.1 moved into disputes queue
2012-06-16 (CM): (still under training) question to (A) Should this be a separate dispute or is it really part of a20120506.1???
2012-06-18 (C): report on current activities regarding this case #2
2012-06-19 (iCM) of case a20120616.1 (19.06.2012 14:24:25) transfered to Arbitration queue. (iCM) still under training
2012-06-19 (A): (19.06.2012 17:36) questions to an US board member (JF) regarding legal issues
2012-06-19 (A): (19.06.2012 18:03) first PoV to question dated 2012-06-16 of (CM). (CM) still under training
2012-06-19 (iCM) of case a20120616.1 (19.06.2012 19:24) I've opened it as case a20120616.1 - (iCM) still under training
2012-06-19 (JF): (19.06.2012 19:02) response to (A)'s questions, opens up one question
2012-06-20 (A): (20.06.2012 00:27) clarification to legal law of which state to (JF)
2012-06-20 (A): (20.06.2012 00:45) giving advise to (CM), who is also (iCM) of case a20120616.1, while picking up the case as (CM) to check DRP and dismissed cases under Arbitrations Closed in the wiki about dismissal procedure
2012-06-20 (iCM) of case a20120616.1 (20.06.2012 09:28) notification to (A) - case a20120616.1 dismissed. (CM) still under training
2012-06-20 (A): (20.06.2012 10:53) giving advise that dismissal of cases as (iCM) is unappropiate and requires role as CM or A under DRP 1.3, DRP 2.2; (iCM) still under training
2012-06-20 (CM) (2012-06-20 15:06) dismissal procedure discovery / research results to (A) sent
2012-06-20 (A): (2012-06-20 15:41) further clarifications of iCM role and potential references to dismissal procedure to (CM)
2012-06-20 (A): (2012-06-20 15:47) further references within Arbitrations/Training about CM and iCM role to (CM)
2012-06-20 (CM): (2012-06-20 17:09) questions regarding iCM role and dismissal
2012-06-20 (A): (2012-06-20 18:07) further advise regarding Policy/Handbook work to (CM)
2012-06-25 (SE): forward of irc log board meeting 2012-06-24
2012-07-09 (C): report on current activites regarding this case #3 to (A)
2012-07-29 (CM): brief note
2012-09-07 (C): developments report #4 to (Piers L) + (A)
2012-11-15 (A): intermediate ruling #3 sent to (C), (Board), (CM), (Arbitration team), (Support team)
2012-11-15 (A): forwarding intermediate ruling #3 to (C) of dismissed case a20120616.1, (C) of cases a20120627.1 Challenge Sealing of a20120506.1 and a20120627.2 Challenge Authority of iCM to dismiss, (R) of case a20120627.2 Challenge Authority of iCM to dismiss (that is als (CM) in current running case)
2012-11-15 (CM): request for clarification on intermediate ruling #3
2012-11-15 (A): response to (CM) request for clarification on intermediate ruling #3, sent to (CM), (C), (Board), (C) of case a20120627.1, (C) of dismissed case a20120616.1
2012-11-16 (A): exec unsealing "intermediate ruling#2" following intermediate ruling #3 (unchanged)
2012-12-04 (A): invitation to a forum: to (C), (CM), (C) of case a20120616.1, (C) of cases a20120627.1 + a20120627.2

Original Dispute, Discovery (Private Part) (optional)

Link to Arbitration case a20120506.1 (Private Part), Access for (CM) + (A) only)

EOT Private Part

Intermediate Ruling #1

I rule this case to be under seal until further intermediate rulings, that will overrule this ruling, pending final ruling, pending review from the Committee of Management of CAcert Incorporated (the board), pursuant to the Dispute Resolution Policy after the conclusion of this case.

All Case Managers, Arbitrators, and Support Engineers, Board members, (and any other community members) are hereby ordered not to disclose infos regarding this case to any other party without authorization from myself as Arbitrator.

The claimant shall send a short summary to the Arbitrator in case he discusses issues regarding this case with other board members that effects this running case.

Frankfurt/Main, 2012-05-10

Intermediate Ruling #2

*under seal*

Frankfurt/Main, 2012-05-10

Intermediate Ruling #3

After review of

report on current activities regarding this case #2 dated 2012-06-18 from (C)
report on current activites regarding this case #3 to (A) dated 2012-07-09 from (C) and
developments report #4 to (Piers L) + (A) dated 2012-09-07 from (C)

the risks of an impact against CAcert that results in the sealing of this case decreased from very high by the time of dispute filing to very low by the time the reports received from (C).

Now again, 4 months later the risks for CAcert dropped to zero as there has not shown any activity matters this potential issues reported.

So therefor I overrule:

the sealing of this case given in Intermediate Ruling #1 of running case dated 2012-05-10 including
a pending review from the Committee of Management of CAcert Incorporated (the board), pursuant to the Dispute Resolution Policy after the conclusion of this case
the order to all Case Managers, Arbitrators, and Support Engineers, Board members, (and any other community members) not to disclose infos regarding this case to any other party without authorization.

This overruling also covers restrictions given that matters relating to the internship

This overruling also covers opening of intermediate ruling #2 *under seal* dated 2012-05-10 after review and anonymizing of Personal Identifiable data

Further events that happened around June 16th 2012 and June 20th (new dispute filings of 3rd parties, not subject within this still running not finaly ruled arbitration case) and (CM) by the time still under training, making actions in a hurry without given orders didn't amused me and will become subject of a later review.

Rationale

The intermediate ruling #1 order followed DRP 2.2 Preliminaries "The Arbitrator may make any preliminary orders, including protection orders and orders referring to emergency actions already taken." to protect CAcert in a whole from any harm before any further infos receives the arbitrator. The intermediate ruling #2 orders a 4 weeks holdtime for review or until further infos are delivered by the dispute filing party.

By the time, of intermediate ruling #1 (sealing the case), a potential threaten against CAcert was very high, so the Openness and Transparency had to step back for a while until the dust has settled down.

By taking action of sealing the case, I've followed the similar case a20090709.1 *under seal* We have the advantage of time, to see things in a clear view once time passed. Now with unsealing the case the principles Openness and Transparency are recovered.

My fault to not unsealing this case earlier was by lack of time while permanently busy by a job project

Frankfurt/Main, 2012-11-15

Intermediate Ruling #2

(unsealed following intermediate ruling #3)

By reviewing the facts received, I come to the conclusion that at current state, the removal of the named post(s) is a short term solution to prevent CAcert from any harm that can be caused by the initial issues (that are outside of this arbitration case), that leads Ian to start the removal of the public visible posts that contain the name and email of the named 3rd party (non-arbitration participient) of non-anonymized form.

Claimant outlined in an interview a potential surreal action taken by a 4th party that has an yet unknown high risk to also affect CAcert in its fundamentals.

From current PoV, I expect to receive some more news regarding this issue within the upcoming 4 weeks so I get a better overview about the named risk.

To weighten the risks from current informations, the removal of the post https://lists.cacert.org/wws/arc/cacert-devel/2012-05/msg00001.html will probably decrease the risk to become attacked from external 4th party.

So I hereby come to the following ruling to also remove the above named mailing list post as the post includes the "realy" identifiable unusual givenname of named 3rd party and give mailing list admins the order to remove the named post.

Frankfurt/Main, 2012-05-10

Discovery

2012-12-04 (A): invitation to a forum: to (C), (CM), (C) of case a20120616.1, (C) of cases a20120627.1 + a20120627.2

Dear CAcert Members,

Regarding Arbitration case a20120506.1
https://wiki.cacert.org/Arbitrations/a20120506.1

also Arbitration cases related:
https://wiki.cacert.org/Arbitrations/a20120616.1
https://wiki.cacert.org/Arbitrations/a20120627.1
https://wiki.cacert.org/Arbitrations/a20120627.2

Today I'm going an unusual way as the events happened
to the running case were either unusual,
to discover what happened besides
running case a20120506.1
while it was still a running open case,
that results in 3 new dispute filings.
So I invite you here for an open hearing

My goal and my hope here is, to disclose the events
step by step, what did probably going wrong and how
we can prevent this from happening again in the future.

As we have several parties here, sometimes Claimant,
sometimes Respondent, sometimes Arbitrator, sometimes
Case Manager, I start this process under a open "Forum"
to get everyones voice heard. Maybe we have to move
the roles in this process, so therefor I call it "open"

Maybe we have to invite later other parties, but
from current state the identified parties are:

 1. Ian Grigg as claimant under a20120506.1
 2. Benedikt Heintel as claimant of case a20120616.1
 3. Philipp Dunkel as claimant of cases a20120627.1 and a20120627.2
 4. Alex Robertson as (iCM) of case a20120616.1
                   as (CM) of case a20120506.1
                   as (R) of case a20120627.2
 5. Ulrich Schroeter as (A) of case a20120506.1
                     as (R) of case a20120627.1

I have prepared a couple of questions, that did
come to my mind while reviewing the events
that happened, mostly around 2nd half of June this
year.
Probably we can review these events step by step,
open questions to be answered step by step
so we can release the Gordian knot and disclose
the meta communications that did happen or did not happen
with this running case.

Maybe you have more open questions, feel free to
add them under this Forum:

Discovery IV

Questions that araises out of events around June 2012 2nd half and that results in 3 followup disputes, marked by sidenote under Intermediate Ruling #3
- ```
Further events that happened around June 16th 2012 and June 20th (new dispute filings of 3rd parties, not subject within this still running not finaly ruled arbitration case) and (CM) by the time still under training, making actions in a hurry without given orders didn't amused me and will become subject of a later review. 
```
1. what did cause the dispute filing of the rejected case a20120616.1 ?
  - parties:
    1. original claimant (C) of case a20120616.1
2. what happened until the case a20120616.1 becomes dismissed ?
  - parties:
    1. (iCM) of case a20120616.1, that is also (CM) of case a20120506.1
    2. (A) of case a20120506.1
3. what was each parties role and current state under 2. ?
  - parties:
    1. (iCM) of case a20120616.1
    2. (CM) of case a20120506.1
    3. (A) of case a20120506.1
4. What did cause the dispute filing a20120627.1 against (A) of Arbitrations/a20120506.1 ? (Challenge Sealing of a20120506.1)
  - probably identical to 1. ?!?
  - parties:
    1. (CM) of case a20120506.1
    2. (R) of case a20120627.1, that is also (A) of case a20120506.1
    3. (C) of case a20120627.1
5. What did cause the dispute filing against (iCM) of case a20120627.2 ? (Challenge Authority of iCM to dismiss case a20120616.1)
  - parties:
    1. (C) of case a20120627.2
    2. (R) of case a20120627.2, that is also (iCM) of case a20120616.1 and that is also (CM) of case a20120506.1
6. what is the scope/relief of case a20120506.1 (running case)
7. what is the scope/relief of case a20120616.1 (rejected case)
8. what is the scope/relief of case a20120627.1 (challenge sealing)
9. what is the scope/relief of case a20120627.2 (challenge authority of role to dismiss a case)
10. identified individuals under above questions:
  1. Benedikt Heintel
    1. (C) of case a20120616.1
  2. Alex Robertson
    1. (iCM) of case a20120616.1
    2. (CM) of case a20120506.1
    3. (R) of case a20120627.2
  3. UlrichSchroeter
    1. (A) of case a20120506.1
    2. (R) of case a20120627.1
  4. PhilippDunkel
    1. (C) of case a20120627.1
    2. (C) of case a20120627.2
  5. Iang
    1. (C) of case a20120506.1
11. What did causes this massive followup of dispute filings?
  - 2 causes are still named vague by the new dispute filings
    1. challenge sealing
    2. challenge authority of role to dismiss a case
  - other causes?
  - process flow?
  - format of processing?
  - is there something still missing?
  - can the process be improved, to prevent such future events?
12. What is the list of applicable policies?
13. Is there a need to improve one or more of the policies? or is there a need to improve processing of sealing cases and authorities definitions within Arbitration team?
  - If it needs an improvement, is this subject of a Policy enhancement? or is this subject to Procedural definition (eg. handbook)?
```
As I go this unusual way, my first question to all invited
parties is:

a.  Do you accept this forum to challenge all our open
    questions under this arbitration case at the meta level?

b.  Do you have addtl. questions, that are not yet discovered
    by above questions list?


In the hope to hear from you soon
```

Ruling

Execution

Similiar Cases

a20090709.1	under seal
a20120616.1	Request to unseal a20120506.1
a20120627.1	Challenge Sealing of a20120506.1
a20120627.2	Challenge Authority of iCM to dismiss case a20120616.1