• Arbitrations
• a20140124.1

• Case Number: a20140124.1
• Status: running
• Claimants: Benny B
• Respondents: Eva S

• iCM: MartinGummi

• Case Manager: MarioLipinski

• former Case Manager: UlrichSchroeter

• Arbitrator: MartinGummi

• Date of arbitration start: 2015-01-31
• Date of ruling: 2015-08-23
• Case closed: 201Y-MM-DD
• Complaint: Arbitrated Background Check over Eva S
• Relief: TBD

Before: Arbitrator MartinGummi (A), Respondent: Eva S (R), Claimant: Benny Baumann (C), Case: a20140124.1

History Log

• 2014-01-25 (issue.c.o) case [s20140124.30]
• 2014-01-25 (iCM): added to wiki, request for CM / A
• 2014-01-26 (iCM): inform C/R
• 2014-01-26 (DRO): added similar non-mandatory ABC request to similar cases
• 2014-01-28 (CM/A): Martin takes care about this case as (A), Ulrich takes care about this case as (CM), init mailing sent to (C), (R) with request for CCA/DRP acceptance, CV
• 2014-01-31 (CM): steps down and retires as (CM) in this case as of a CoI
• 2014-02-02 (A): Mario (CM2) steps in as CM
• 2014-02-09 (CM2): notified participants about CM change

Original Dispute, Discovery (Private Part) (optional)

• Link to Arbitration case a20140124.1 (Private Part)

EOT Private Part

Discovery

• 2013-11-16 member of CAcert Inc. m20131113.3

• 2014-01-29 (R) Accept CCA and through this DRP
• 2014-05-13 Verification of assurer status [s20140511.79]
• Dirk A. as Minutes Taker
• Marcus M. as Observer
• Benedikt H. as Auditor

Meeting

Ruling

Intermediate Ruling

Former CM in a20140124.1 case has to wipe the CV and all other data of this case and report it when its done. Lübeck 2014-02-27

Ruling Part 1 (current ABC Case)

The Security Policy does require ABCs for the following functions within CAcert

Access Engineer
Systems Administrator
Support Engineer
Software Assessor

Defined in the SP9.1.4.2. linked to SP 1.1.1

• The Arbitrator role is not covered by this list.
• The realm-specific ABC requirements for Arbitrators are not defined. I am not aware of any requirements of becoming an Arbitrator.

The interview did happened at Fosdem 2014, Bruessels 2014-02-02 (A, R, Minutes Taker, Audit, Observer) The review of the Interview at 2014-03-04 Participants (A, CM, R)

• During the interview, no potential CoI was discovered.
• Up to the date of the ABC Interview, the respondent do good work in the Arbitration Team
• The Respondent know and work with the SP in several Arbitration Cases
• Since not all ABC requirements have been met, I hereby can not grand the Respondent a passed ABC.

Ruling Part 2 (General on ABC)

Conducting an ABC as Arbitrator, I discover that the ABC process and the ABC question provided does not reflect CAcert's actual goal to protect, what is: Initially Proof a persons integrity in regards to control by or interrelations with security agencies or other organisations with goals opposing CAcert's principles.

The questionnaire is kept confidential, therefore, I can not disclose too many details in regard to the questions contained. Around half of all questions do have little or non relevances to this goal. These questions handle the general knowledge of the applicant in regards to security agencies and personal work experiences.

Reviewing the ABC questionnaire I come to the conclusion that it should be overhauled to reflect definite goal before any other ABC is conducted. The overhaul ABC questionnaire and process must be reviewed by the Arbitrator of this case.

St. Augustin near Bonn , 2015-08-23

Execution

Similiar Cases

• CategoryArbitration

• CategoryArbCaseSystemABC