• Arbitrations
• Meetings
• ATAgendaandMinutes-20100120

• To Arbitration Arbitrations - To Arbitration Training & Lessons

• Back to Arbitration Team Meetings

Arbitration Team Meeting 2010-01-20

1. Preliminaries

• 1.1 Chair opens the Committee Meeting

  1.2 Accept the Minutes of the last Arbitration Team Meeting

2. Businesses - Important Note: Acceptance of Businesses 48 Hours before beginning of Arbitration Team Meeting latest!

• 2.1 Privacy Infos on Wiki Arbitration cases added by UlrichSchroeter

  • Additional Inputs

  • 7. working on the interface between triage/support and arbitration team
       between mid November till mit December, checking the smooth
       forwarding of dispute filings from triage/support to arbitration team
       and therefor i've also started the creation process of new arbitration
       cases that had been forwarded from triage/support to arbitration
       thus includes the creation of a case number and add onto the wiki
       as individual wiki page and to the overview
       https://wiki.cacert.org/Arbitrations
       End of November, starting Dec the first rumours received my attention
       to not publicly enter the full names, and other personal data onto
       the wiki page. Here I've got the ruling as a precedents
       under https://wiki.cacert.org/Arbitrations/a20080702.1
       (see end of ruling)
       therefor, I've entered the new cases personal data (especialy DoB)
       in anonymized form onto the wiki, following the rule:
       "All proceedings of this arbitration will be published in the
        CAcert wiki. However all personally identifiable information of the
        claimant and/or respondent will be anonymized."
    
       btw. https://wiki.cacert.org/Arbitrations/a20080702.1 includes
       a long discussion about privacy infos and arbitrations documentation.
       Here I follow the co-audited assurances concept for data anonymizing:
       givenname full, first char of lastname to anonymize the
       name, but have enough identifications about different users
    
       so therefor i've restarted the more relaxed form of entering
       personal data to the wiki in the last cases. Last night
       again I received, the request to remove all personal identifiable
       names from the wiki page ...
    
       As other questions in the Arbitration team hasn't been discussed
       before this area is also in the experience phase.
       As said before, I rcvd several requests in the meanwhile about removal
       of personal identifiable informations from the wiki pages.
       Not in this actual case. Here I've entered only case related,
       non-personal identifiable infos to the wiki page.
    
    10. starting mid November / December 2009 with education of new Case Managers
        I've also started documenting the process of initializing arbitration cases
        https://wiki.cacert.org/Arbitrations/Training/Lesson03
        and other CM and A work under
        https://wiki.cacert.org/Arbitrations/Training
        This documentation needs to be continued, each time, an open
        question araises. So as a result a new generation of
        Case Managers and Arbitrators have a starting point with
        step by step showcases how they can structure their work.
        Thus includes yet well used procedures (i.e. Initmailing
        with some addtl. advancements)

  • * Useful Links from within the text

  • * Arbitrations Overview

  • * Arbitration case a20080702.1

  • * Arbitration Training Lesson 3 - 6 (Case Managers Work, Starting a case)

  • * Arbitration Training Lessions - Overview

  • * read also: https://financialcryptography.com/mt/archives/001165.html

  2.2 Top Two added by YourName - Comment: Replace "Top Two" by Title of Top and add your Name

  • Additional Inputs - Comment: Replace "Additional Inputs"by Description of Top, Description of Reason-Why/Purpose, Additional Comments, Additional Documents, Additional Links, if useful for other Arbitration Team Members to prepare for Arbitration Team Meeting.

  • et cetera

3. Question Time - Important Note: Questions from CAcert.org Community Members can be added until beginning of Arbitration Team Meeting! As well questions can be asked at "Question Time", without added Question here

• 3.1 "naming issue ... country variations" added by AlexanderPrinsier

  • is an abbreviation an allowed country variation? its about an arbitration case ... dutch abreviated (shortend) name form

  3.2 "Arbitration Team Transcript and Minutes posting on the Wiki" added by UlrichSchroeter

  • Is it possible to set permissions on a wiki directory for the Meeting Transcriptions ?

4. Closing

• 4.1. Confirm next Arbitration Team Meeting: Usually every 1st & 3rd Tuesday of the month, 19:00 UTC (20 CET).
  

  4.2. Chair closes the Arbitration Team Meeting
  

  4.3. Preparation of Minutes
  

Minutes - Arbitration Team Meeting 2010-01-20

Synopsis of Meeting Contents

• Top 2.1 Privacy Infos on Wiki Arbitration cases

  • the question is what kind of information of related parties we include and which not, right?
  • the problem ... i've picked up all the new dispute filings since support blockage and fixing ... starting with publishing the dispute filings ... at the beginning I've added lot of infos from the mailings to the wiki ...
  • from my experience i've come from all to the form, write down the dispute filing, and remove names and email addresses and DoB infos
  • if the initmail has been started, and the C and/or R requests privacy so the privacy is already there. if nobody objects to add more infos, this can be added later
  • so by default we don't add anything identifiable?
  • in cases of sql queries for i.e. locations database, this can be added in full, 'cause the text doesn't include any privacy infos
  • I agree. I think it's wise to start with reduced info: it is important that the process is transparent, but for this it's not required that everyone in the world can read details about the persons involved
  • We probably should not add more detail for those cases where C and R do not object, so that the level of info detail is consistent over all cases
  • so the "reduced" form i.e. John D. would help
  • but .. remember ... we have the option to "reduce" the name in the header to ie.. Givenname, first letter Lastname so the case will become identifyable to the involved parties, but not realy by others
  • read the find an assurer list ,-)
  • why even put the full first name? what is it's added value?
  • I'd say to make it more transparent, we cannot reveale the full name, but we should not "over-anonimize"
  • The history: starting arbitrations SE's was the CM's, since SE blockage this has been totaly stopped, the CM job moves into the arb team ... and the remaining cases, that are appointed with a CM but no A ... still waiting, new cases are added within a few hours, CM's picks them up fast, only the pickup by A's is actualy the problem ...
  • that's probably because of 2 things: 1) not enough arbitrators 2) not many standard procedures yet, so a lot of time goes into investigation

  • If I pickup a case as A, i ask around 2, 3, 4 people, and they stepin. standard procedures you can only use for the name cases and delete account cases, but here I've also started the trainings lesson's Arbitrations Training. here all procedures should be added that are well known and the gap between 10 and 50 needs to be filled ,-)

  • hm so we really include the firstname? in my opinion it doesn't provide privacy.
  • It does on a global scale (like google searches), but is a bit limited within CAcert. But is not a real issue in CAcert
  • well i still prefer to do it right, completely... either full privacy or either no privacy

  • the problem discussion can be find here: Arbitration case a20080702.1

  • so no name on the wiki page, or the full name
  • please split arbitration case wiki header and body. the header is the "official" record about the case.
  • that's what you propose, but I'd prefer either nothing or the full name. indeed abbreviating the last name to one letter works for google, but not for cacert... so why do you want to do it like this?
  • all the requests I have received are about " ... so my name cannot be easily find by google"
  • ah
  • I understand that that's what you prefer. I however want it to be transparent (so names) but not showing full names (because of privacy)
  • still it's quite limited privacy
  • So in the end showing full first name and initial for last name is a good compromize
  • if a user requests; please remove my name in full ... that can be handled later ...
  • Summary:
    • need to anonymize wiki pages (include firstname, abbreviate lastname)
    • add training material
    • find "default solutions" for cases like name change

• Question 3.1 Country Variations in Name cases

  • I still have my naming issue though... you said: "country variations are for real variations ... not only nicknames and abreviations" which raises some questions. Question is: is an abbreviation an allowed country variation? for example in the netherlands again, the birth name (and hence the name on official id) is the christian name. However nobody calls this person by the christian name... is that allowed or not?
  • (its about an arbitration case ... dutch abreviated (shortend) name form. Id doc doesn't show Paul but Paulus ... account shows Paul ... is assurer allowed to transfer the points ?

  • Correct. No, not always correct: a lot of christian names are used. I think the PracticeOnNames is clear and gives a few examples, and states that we cannot abbreviate

  • AP says exceptions are allowed due to country variations

  • AP's section 0.3 => AP is split in AP and AH. AH includes PracticeOnNames (former PolicyOnNames)

  • I (as someone from the netherlands) would not allow Paul when Paulus is his official name

  • country variations are specialtys from i.e. Netherlands => "tussenvoegsels"

  • one exception: if you can show a birthcertificate with the short name, then you can show this in one assurance
  • yes of course, then you have at least one official id with your short name
  • or if its arbitrated, this case is then written
  • how is that backed up by policy? AP refers to the assurance handbook for common "practices", but is that policy?
  • so then let's find an answer for the other question: is practice on names as binding as policy? it's not under policy on policy... can it be binding...?
  • What is "binding"? I'd say it's the best we have so far, so for us it's leading. But since it's not yet policy, we (as arbitrators) can add or modify if required

  • in arbitration you follow AP ... AP relates to AH and AH includes PracticeOnNames ... so as arbitrator you have to check all 3 docs

  • it's "leading", so what do you do if someone files a dispute against "Paul" because his real name is "Paul"? Practice on names only is leading... What if Paul really wants to keep his name to Paul?

  • I've also ruled the tussenvoegsels prob ... and added it to PracticeOnNames later so every new member has now an answer which combinations he can use adding his name ,-)

  • so you both tend to accept practice on names as if it's policy? anyone can file a dispute (and be 'rightful') for things according to the AP itself, but in conflict with practice on names?
  • Its NOT Policy, but binding
  • the idea is to allow more names, so in the future he can add "Paul" as a name. But for now we assure the name as written in the official documents
  • the idea with the multiple names in accont is: you have 3 docs and all 3 shows different name variations
  • So if Paul wants to keep his name "Paul", he has to ask for an official name change and request a new passport with "Paul" in it

  • PracticeOnNames prob: practice changes often ... so for every change this needs a policy change. this was seen at the time policy was written. so it relates to the "open" document AH ... that can be modified. PracticeOnNames is a "sub-document" especialy for the Names handling (AH covers more)

  • To me it seems like another case (don't know the details) where someone wanted to use the name that everyone calls him (say he wanted John as his name, although his official id says he is Charles). We cannot allow that, because that is not a name we can verify. We cannot go and talk to all his friends and verify if they call him John instead of Charles. So in my definition "Paul" is here used as a nickname, because it's not his real name
  • I've sent in last nights mail links to various name links on wikipedia ... one is nickname
  • wouldn't the new software allow alexander to request a cert with aphexer in the name? Because the cert serial number is linked back to the official name, we can always track back to that name
  • the CPS says: assured names, and as long aphexer isn't assured, this name cannot be added
  • imagine "paul" signs an email (say, to sell his car), but later on the receiver files a dispute (because Paul now does not want to sell). What name should be in the case as R? Paul or Paulus? If it would be Paul, he can claim that it's not him: there are no official government issued docs that state his name is Paul. So C has a problem, because we were to free with the name. makes sense?
  • we allow more as good is ?!?
  • because we accepted Paul instead of his official name

  • ok, one thought for the last: please read arb Arbitration case a20070921.1 .-)

  • Yes, interesting one. But it also states that that ruling cannot be applied to other cases, and at the time the practice on names was not yet there. now there is more concensus, and a practice.
  • one interesting side note is, that arbitrators also have to check: how your ruling affects CAcert ... but this is only one of many things you have to rethink if you are ruling
  • so what's the conclusion about the naming? abbreviation is a nickname and hence not allowed?

  • Paulus

  • so for the record: an abbreviation is not a country variation, right?
  • But will likely be solved in a later version of the software
  • we're talking about the case where there is absolutely no official id on the abbreviated name, so why no?
  • ("No" is answer to question: is not a country variation)

  • ok: sample: if someone has Id 1: Paulus, Id2 Paul and you both noted on your CAP and Account has "Paul" thats ok. but if Id1 says Paulus and Id 2 says Paulus and CAP says Paulus and Account says Paul -> absolutly no

  • is this now clear? My opinion is: Paul is not an accepted standard ab breviation of Paulus. There are persons that are named Paulus, and there are others that are named Paul. So the names are different. We cannot accept persons with name Paulus to use another name like Paul
  • if only one ID shows an abreviated name ... thats out of discussion
  • is it clear to you now, or do you still have a question about this?
  • one exception, I think,also written earlier: ID1 says Paulus, ID2 says Paulus and he claims his name is Paul, and he shows a birthcertificate with Paul ... thats ok
  • I had one case in Dec ... assurance ID states name w/o accent .... only birth cert shows name with accent but he wants accent in his account. showed birth cert. ok
  • Summary:
    • an abbreviation is not a country variation
    • dutch name abbreviations are nicknames and hence not allowed in the account name
    • one exception: if one ID doc shows this abbreviated name (i.e. birth certificate)

    • PracticeOnNames is not policy, but covered thru AP -> AH -> PracticeOnNames and therefor is binding to arbitrators

• Question 3.2 Meeting minutes record to be publicly available?

  • btw, do we make this meeting record publicly available? or is this internal chat?

  • here I propose to follow the board meeting rules .... its public ... if something is within the transcript, that is privacy related, this can we <anonymize> ,-)

  • I think it depends on what will be in the minutes:
  • - when it includes all details from the transcript, I don't want it public
  • - if it includes the issues (like in this case: 1) progress on arbitration, 2) discussion about names and abbr.) without the details, I definitely want the am public
  • since it's also a sort of training doc for everyone interested. I think the discussions we had regarding abbr. is great: we whould have more of these discussions because it will increase overall quality and bring A's more in sync. So, before answering if it should be public, I'd like to discuss what should be in it. I can imagine a condensed summary of the meeting as public, and the transcript as "arbitrators only" What do you think? (end)
  • agreed ... except an actual problem ... where to store the transcript? so a subdir under Arbitrations in the wiki can be set with permissions to Arbitrators only. ie. meeting page ... link to ./transcripts/transcript-meeting-100120 where /transcript is secured
  • i think the full transcript should not be public but the results of course should be
  • Summary:
    • Transcript will be put into a directory with permissions set to "Arbitrators only"
    • Minutes will be posted in a reduced form of discussion, with removal of privacy infos and with summary

Meeting Transcript

• Meeting Transcript 2010-01-20

Inputs & Thoughts

• YYYYMMDD-YourName

• Text / Your Statements, thoughts and e-mail snippets, Please

• YYYYMMDD-YourName

• Text / Your Statements, thoughts and e-mail snippets, Please

• CategoryArbitration

• CategoryArbMeeting