To Arbitration Arbitrations - To Arbitration Training & Lessons
Back to Arbitration Team Meetings - To Previous meeting - To Next meeting
Arbitration Team Meeting 2013-03-21 (22 CET, 21 UTC)
- Meeting will be held on IRC channel #arb-meeting
1 Preliminaries
- 1.1 Chair opens the Committee Meeting
- 1.2 Appoint Minute taker
1.3 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 Review Progress of suggestions to amend DRP from Meeting 2012-10-24 added by AlexRobertson
- PD offered to write a draft...
- from meeting transcript
(23:09:42) phidelta: @u60 I'll write a draft of a policy change, evaluate it on its merits. I think you will find that it may solve that issue
2.2 Reminders added by UlrichSchroeter
- Arbitrations in queue/running year 2009: 5 / 4
- Arbitrations in queue/running year 2010: 20 / 17
- Arbitrations in queue/running year 2011: 33 / 23
2.3 Standards in Verifications added by UlrichSchroeter
- Standard cases (name change requests, DoB requests) requires review by arbitrators (if its not still a precedent case)
- Arbitrators have some verification paths:
- request informations from assurers
- request for assurer assisted confirmation (eg name change request w/ assurance)
- request for passport scan (privacy laws and other laws may clash)
- addtl. infos:
Board motion m20080422.3
- In the board motion debate and the DPA debate it has been discovered that
- Copies of ID are not compliant with European privacy Directive (EU DPA)
2.4 Top Four added by YourName - Comment: Replace "Top" 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 "Question One" added by YourName - Comment: Replace "Question One" by Your Question and add your Name
- et cetera
4 Closing
- 4.1 Confirm next Arbitration Team Meeting: Usually every 3rd Thursday of the month, 22:00 CET (21 UTC).
- Thursday, 2013-04-18, 22 CEST, 20 UTC ?
- 4.2 Chair closes the Arbitration Team Meeting
- 4.3 Preparation of Minutes
- 4.1 Confirm next Arbitration Team Meeting: Usually every 3rd Thursday of the month, 22:00 CET (21 UTC).
Minutes - Arbitration Team Meeting 2013-03-21
1.1 Meeting opens at 21:08UTC
Attendees: Alex, Uli, Ted
1.2 Minutes taker
- Minutes will be taken by Uli
- 1.3 Minutes of last meeting
Accepted: 3/0/0
2. Businesses
- Uli: motion "that we move over to private #arbteam irc channel" (for privacy reasons)
- Is there a need for "privacy" or "secrecy"??
- there may be potential "arbitration internal" and privacy related topics, that we cannot forsee at the start of an arbteam meeting, later disclosed in the minutes as summary
- there is also a policy of "openness"
- the "openess" will be given by summary in the minutes
Rejected: 1/2/0
2.1 Review Progress of suggestions to amend DRP from Meeting 2012-10-24
- no progress info
adjourned for next meeting
2.2 Reminders
- we still have cases from 2009-2011 in the pipeline ... in total 58 cases (!!!)
- one job by the "old" DRO was, to check for these cases, and ask the arbitrators who have the cases running about progress with their cases
- No-one has made a DRO request about speed of processing
- Uli: I have about 30 open/running cases and have no much spare time to continue with all the cases .. so with the small spare time I pick up case by case, but it needs much more time
- Ted: how should non-responsive parties be handled? all of my old ones are missing some replies of someone
- Alex: We're a "finite resource" - without more active Arbs, I don't think there will be a lot of change
- Uli: despite the fact no one asked about the old cases .. the arbitrators probably needs a reminder to check their cases (by default its the CM job to remind the (A) ...)
- Alex: Similarly you have limited time, Ted has limited time, I have limited time
- Uli: we've installed the "replace" arbitrators procedures .. one topic is, that DRO interviews the arbitrators whats prevents them from make some progress, if CM and A no longer takes care about a case .... nothing will happen ...
- Alex: Alternatively the Arbitrators themselves would need to "step down" (Arbitration training lesson 62). DRO cannot step in without that initial request from someone. I actually need that request from one or more of the participants in a case
- Ted: asking about progress will not qualify as interference with a case
- Uli: Remove Arbitrator procedure is a 3 step procedure ... 1st level ... progress request is no Remove Arbitrator issue, 2nd level ... starts with request to DRO for Arbitrator removal ... DRO interviews candidate and dependend of the interview forward the Remove Arbitrator request to 3rd level board motion to Removal of Arbitrator
- Alex: 1st Level is "to report to DRO by Case Managers, Arbitrators or Arbitration participants", 2nd level is "the DRO's duty to check the case". There is no process defined other than lesson 62
- Alex: 15 or 20 arbs on the list. How many here, or last month, or the month before? How many apologies? 15 arbs on the list - of whom four or five are at all active recently
- Uli: recruitment will become a good new topic
Uli: List of Arbitrators green + yellow markers shows some activity - orange: no activity since long time; List of finished Arbitrations lists the count of active arbitrators each month; based on Arbitrations Closed I've set the green markers according to last months activity, so if an (A) closed or picked up a case within the last 12 months, it shows at least yellow
- Alex: Arb list has a section for "former arbs" - maybe better to put in an "inactive arbs" section - and notify those moved there... might trigger a bit more of a response
Uli: the List of Arbitrators are the "nominated" official list ... so the "activity" is shown by the marker, current order in the list is nomination / re-nomination
- Alex: That could also be a trigger towards clearing/freeing/reallocating existing cases
- Alex: The other issue is "who will take on these freed cases" if such a route were to be followed?
Uli: One task of a team leader is to keep his area on rolling. He can also delegate this job, but its primary the t/l's task. In the past I've assisted Lambert in this job, giving a reminder to remind the team members. Its similar to a project management task: request frequently status updates. Teams gives some indications about t/l's tasks. One topic in each team is, if someone doesn't have the time, he has to inform the t/l. In contrast is, if t/l sees small or no activity, he has to ask the team member, otherwise there is no information exchange. How do you want to get the informations from the team members, if you don't ask? Back in 2009 we had some "ping" runs in the arb mailing list, but this only gives small of information. It only signals, that the team member is connected to the mailing list
Summary: No conclusion, no decision
2.3 Standards in Verifications
Uli: all addtl. informations under Agenda topic 2.3
- Ted: primary source of information should be Assurer's CARS statements if possible
- discussion moved over to two current cases a. accent case b. short givenname case
- contrary discussion if accent case can be handled under relaxed name rules or if it requires a new precedent case
- Alex: Name variations would allow it and would allow "simplification" by not having the accent in documents
- Uli: Removing accent is ok, add accent (and that is what I've read this case) is not w/o further confirmations by assures
- Ted: the general policy is only to assure things seen in documents
- Alex: if assuree had accent on his name when originally assured, this could be disregarded by assurers under eg 8-7bit rule, It's also fine for someone to be known how they wish - multiple precedents for this. If the correct accented name is put in, he can still be assured with unaccented documents based on relaxed rules
- Uli: the relaxed rules requires strict documentations and assurers that can confirm, that they've realy sure, that we can bring the guy to arbitration. The latter is fulfilled by the running case, but the first part, whats about the documentations by assurers ? There is a potential path, to make this case a new precedent, but this requires some more rethinking ... especialy under which "relaxed" rules exception to put this case? country variation? ... probably
Alex: references a20111204.3 "One modified character in name". Overall I still have no issue with this one - it's essentially a "cosmetic" change. I don't think there is enough to take this to a precedent case and I don't think it's necessary.
- Uli: Another PoV. How we can train the assurers with this conflicting general rule "Its allowed to reduce information, but its prohibited to add information"? In the accent case I realy doesn't see it to be a relaxed rules case, otherwise you have to explain it, why its a relaxed rules case, how it relates to what "variation" to AP 2.2. the facts: eg. in documents you seldom have accents. We in CAcert handle it different. We know about the accent problem, that they don't appear in id documents, but in most cases it can be confirmed by birth certificates (to be proven by verification in current case), so we open up the "accent" relaxed variation. 8 to 7 bit is no problem but vvs. and Andre w/o accent to Andre w/ accent is a 7 to 8 bit transliteration and therefor prohibited. So therefor we have to explain the reasons why we in CAcert allow this direction for accents.
- Alex:
- if he had his accented name when he was assured, it would be the other way (8-7) therefore allowable.
- He's requested the addition of the accent later by arbitration.
- Result of (2) is the same as (1)
- Uli: 2 more samples:
- name with middle name ... you've documented all middle names ... in online system you have only one givenname and surname ... you're allowed to proceed
- if in online system are 3 name parts and you only documented 2 name parts, you're out of luck - you cannot proceed
Alex: references to a20120115.2
Uli: you can move on with the UK/US common known name variation -> country variation under relaxed rules
Uli: but the accent cases aren't yet well handled and requires larger explanations. I don't say, we cannot allow, but we have to explain it more widely (similar to the hyphen ruling I gave). We know that there is a problem of Id docs, that they seldom shows names with accents, so in principle we cannot allow accents in accounts -> see strict rule
- We assure only names, that we can find in at least one ID document.
- Its allowed to reduce information, but its prohibited to add information.
Transliterations are accepted (8->7)
as we know about the accent problem and we can prove the accents by eg. birth or marriage certificates and other documents we make an exception to the accent handling to become a known relaxed variation so assurers have to follow the relaxed rules -> full documentation
- Alex: I've allowed it in this case - but yes. a20120115.2 would cover accents (is the account name reasonable!) in the future. I could expand on the "yellow box" in the Country Variations for this for the future. From a practical viewpoint, we probably need to effectively regard accents as "optional" although umlauts might be an exception.
- Uli: Umlauts "optional" is a problem! in cases where Mueller doesn't match Müller. If Mueller is the real name. So the accent case probably needs a deeper discovery and needs to be set in relation to the Umlauts problem
Alex: However - it's back to being realistic - a20120115.1 still covers it for assurers in the future - even if it needs further clarification. Practice On Names - Country variations Para 2 of the yellow box. The precise wording of Para 2 allows both to be handled - "is the account name reasonable for the individual identified by the documents.
Uli: no, a20120115.2 doesn't covers the accent cases (a20120115.2 -> russ / russell), the "nickname" cases are slight different to the accent cases, Accents in principle no. Its a complete different area. Whats about umlauts? This strives a complete different name variation that requires more explanations, and prove of concept. So the first "precedent" requires deeper review, explanations why CAcert overrule the principle "7->8 bit transliteration prohibited rule" for this case and what makes it different to the Umlaut variations
- Alex: Is Andre (accent) a reasonable variation for an individual who's ID is Andre (no accent)? IMHO yes....
- Uli: No, as we've also have Andre w/o accent. A recommendation for assurers can be: show me one document w/ accent, could be a reasonable question so the assurers can document the variation and pass the assurance
Summary: No conclusion, no decision
3. Questions
- Uli: 2.1., 2.2 to put on agenda for next meeting again ... 2.3 too ?
- Alex: Probably not a lot of point putting 2.2 or 2.3 - we've been through it all and I don't really see any viewpoints changing substantively. particularly as it's only likely to be the three of us again.
4. Closing
4.1 Confirm next Arbitration Team Meeting
Thursday, 2013-04-18, 22 CEST, 20 UTC
4.2 Chair closes the Arbitration Team Meeting at 00:16UTC
Meeting Transcript
Inputs & Thoughts
YYYYMMDD-YourName
Text / Your Statements, thoughts and e-mail snippets, Please