- Case Number: a20090406.1
- Status: closed
- Claimants: Andreas Bürki
- Respondents: Joel Studler
Case Manager: Martin Gummi
- former Case Manager: Alejandro Mery
- former Arbitrator: Philipp Dunkel
- Date of arbitration start: 2009-04-20
- Date of ruling: 2010-09-30
- Case closed: 2010-09-30
- Complaint: user assured twice has a not-validated artistic name as prefix
His official names are correct. But not his additional artist name "rimshot", that is not on his handwritten CAP form and even if, I would not have accepted it, as it is not part of his presented official document (Swiss Identity Card).
- Date of arbitration: 2009-04-20
A: To initialize the case the following E-Mail was written to the Claimant and the Respondent.
Dear Gentlemen, please indicate that you agree to this arbitration in accordance to the Dispute Resolution Policy as well as the CAcert Community Agreement. You can find the currently known details of the case at: http://wiki.cacert.org/wiki/Arbitrations/a20090406.1 Kind regards, Philipp Dunkel (Arbitrator)
A: Received a reply from the claimant. However the respondent has not yet replied. I have therefore sent another email to him requesting a response.
2009-09-07 : The following E-Mail was sent to the respondenent:
Dear Joel, as you may be aware the CAcert Community Agreement requires you to keep your primary email address in working order. 3.5 Communication Notifications to CAcert are to be sent by email to the address support at CAcert.org. You should attach a digital signature, but need not do so in the event of security or similar urgency. Notifications to you are sent by CAcert to the primary email address registered with your account. You are responsible for keeping your email account in good working order and able to receive emails from CAcert. Arbitration is generally conducted by email. Since you are currently part of an arbitration you have been contacted twice before via E-Mail (see below). Please be aware that your account may well be terminated if you do not respond. Furthermore there are additional steps that can be taken. Please acknowledge this email as well as your acceptance of the DRP and the CCA. This is just for the record, since I have been informed that you have already physically signed those statements during a recent assurance. Regards, Philipp Dunkel (Arbitrator)
2010-01-31 : The following mail was sent to the respondent:
Dear Joel, since you have not responded to my mail regarding the above case, I have to inform you that you are found to be in breach of the CAcert Community Agreement, and that you account will be terminated. In order to prevent this from happening, please respond to this e-mail by Monday the 15th of January 2010. Unless you have responded by then and accepted the arbitration process by that date, your account will be terminated and all your certificates will be revoked. Best regards, Philipp Dunkel (Arbitrator)
2010-01-31 : The following email was sent to the repsondent
Dear Joel, once in a while errors are made. Of course the deadline is not in the past. The deadline should have read Monday the 15th of February 2010 Regards, Philipp Dunkel (Arbitrator) <Below was a copy of the above email>
- 2009-04-05 (C): initial email to (Support), assurance removal req.
- 2009-04-06 (Support): notification to (C) and (R) of assurance removal of (C) over (R), also starting dispute filing on behalf of (C)
- 2009-04-06 (R): statement and PoV, asking (Support) how to remove suffix from account
- 2009-04-06 (Support): to (C) and (R): (suffix removal req. from (R)) as you request it, I have removed it from your account.
2009-04-06 (C): to (Support), (R): It's done. The prefix <...> is removed and I have done the correct assurance a few minute ago. How do you handle the dispute now? Will it be deleted or will an arbitrator just confirm the facts of reality (prefix removed)?
- 2009-04-06 (Support): to (C), (R): as other two assurers made bad assurances, violating the agreement, the arbitrator will most probably investigate deeper, contact them, and decide something.
- 2009-04-20 (A): case initiated
- 2009-09-07 (A): sent init mail to (R)
- 2009-11-13 (A): Sabbatical as board member
- 2010-01-31 (A): sent init mail to (R) with deadline: Monday the 15th of February 2010
- 2010-01-31 (CM): I'll take care about this case as CM as substitute to former CM Alejandro Mery
- 2010-09-08 (A): I'll take care about this case as A as substitute to former A Philipp Dunkel
- 2010-09-08 (A): notification to (C), (R) about new (A)
- 2010-09-08 (A): req. to (Support): 1. original dispute file, 2. secondary email addresses on the account, 3. Assurer state of (R), 4. Assurances received by (R)
- 2010-09-08 (Support): [s20100908.51] response to (A), answered 2.-4., 1. delayed
- 2010-09-09 (Support): [s20100908.51] response part 2 to (A), answered 1.) forward of 6 emails from Support inbox
- 2010-09-22 (A): sending current state of investigations to (R) with req. to respond
- 2010-09-28 (R): replied
- Support ticket [s20100908.51] request by (A) part 1
addtl. note from Support: First of, there is no mention of <...> in any of the name fields of that account.
- 2) Additional email: none
- 3) Assurer state: probably no
- 4) 5 assurances rcvd Apr 2009
- Support ticket [s20100908.51] request by (A) part 2
1) 6 emails from (dated 5th and 6th Apr 20009) communications via Support about this case -> correction of history info
- (C) and (R) confirmed, that suffix is not part of ID doxs
- Suffix has been removed from (R)'s account as of request by (C) and (R) by an (SE) dated 2009-04-06, 2 weeks before this arbitration case has been picked up
- currently (2010-09-08) there is no longer a suffix in (R)'s account
- assurance of (C) over (R) has been added to the system
- so original dispute filing lacks action to be taken
- Ruling is about 2 parts
- Ruling 1: confirm support activities around Apr 2009
- Ruling 2: probably CCA 2.5 (2) violation of (R) by not responding to any Arbitrator requests
- is this Arbitration case an active Arbitration case if actions are taken long time ago ?
- (R)'s non-respondance in case of a non-Arbitration is questionable - (R) responded until the problem was solved, is solved, and now 1 year later doesn't respond
- (C) accepted CCA / DRP (probably 2009-04-20)
(C)'s assurance over (R) conducted at OpenExpo 2009 Bern, (C) was also Event Organizer for this event. Event Organizer sends an Events Report to Events Team Leader (2009-04-21), Events Team Leader forwarded Events report to Board mailing list (2009-04-22): Event Report - OpenExpo09 Bern Switzerland. Event report includes the clause: "Applicants have been advised to read CCA  (unfortunately in English only!) before filling.". New CAP forms that includes the CCA clause were used http://svn.cacert.org/CAcert/Forms/cap.pdf only. So all Assurances conducted to AP. It can be assumed that (R) accepted CCA / DRP by filling out and sign the CAP forms for several Assurers, that included the CAcert Community Agreement. Several Assurers from this event conducted their Assurances over (R) into the system. Conclusion: (R) accepted CCA / DRP several times by signing CAP forms to the Assurers, dated 2009-04-02
- (R) responded within one week to (A)'s request. So there is no sign of a CCA 2.5 (2) violation.
- Part I - prefix on account name disputed
- From the investigation results, (C)'s and (R)'s request to Support has been executed by a Support-Engineer dated 2009-04-06 under SP 8.1 Authority "If the Member's authority is not in doubt, the Member can give that authority. If not, the Arbitrator's authority must be sought." and SM 8.2.1. Support Engineers "revoke an assurance". A dispute filing has been started. So all participients (C), (R), (SE) acted accordingly to SP + SM.
- Documentation of activities back to around 2009-04-06 can be found within 6 emails in the Support Inbox.
- There was no malfeasance of any type alleged or found
- So I hereby confirm the action of the Support-Engineer that he has followed the rules by SP + SM in this case.
- All actions that have been performed on 2009-04-06 by Support-Engineer have been in full compliance with the CAcert procedures.
- Part II - CCA 2.5 (2) violation of (R)
- I could not find any sign of CCA 2.5 (2) violation "to keep your email account in good working order" by (R) as stated by former (A). (R) responded in a resonable time to my request.
- Probably the long "unresponsiveness" former (A) states was caused by a technical problem ?
- So I hereby state: there exists no CCA 2.5 (2) violation by (R) in this case.
- The accusation lacks the basis.
- No further actions needed.
- 2010-09-30 (A): sent ruling to (C), (R), (SE), (CM). Case closed.