* Case Number: a20090618.8
    * Status: closed
    * Claimants: Dirk Astrath
    * Respondents: Michel Rode
    * Case Manager: Nick Bebout
    * Arbitrator: UlrichSchroeter
    * Date of arbitration beginning: 2009/06/18
    * Date of ruling: 2009/10/12
    * Date of execution: 2009/11/12
    * Case closed: 2009/11/12 
    * Complaint: User has non-validated middle name in account
{{{
Hello support,

Since i am not allowed to assure somebody with a (part of a) name, which is 
not on his documents, i can't assure him:

His name in the documents reads 'Michel Rode' ... and his account in the 
CAcert-Database is listed as 'Michel rmichel Rode' ... with 120 
Assurance-Points ...

What is the next thing i should do? ... ;-)

have a nice day ... 

dirk astrath

}}}
    * Relief: Removal of Nickname from Account

Before: Arbitrator Ulrich Schroeter (A). Respondent: Michel Rode (R) Claimant: Dirk Astrath (C) Case: a20090618.8


 . A: Please initialise the case by sending EMail to Claimant and Respondent
 . 2009-08-27 A: Email adr request of (R) from (C)
 . 2009-08-29 A: Got Email Adress of Respondent from (C) by reviewing the orig CAP
 . 2009-08-29 A: Sending req for CCA / DRP acceptance to (C) and (R), CC to (CM)
 . 2009-08-29 C: accepting CCA / DRP
 . 2009-09-05 A: resend init req from (R) to accept CCA + DRP
 . 2009-09-06 R: accepting CCA / DRP
 . 2009-10-12 A: ruling: Removal of Nickname from Account

== Discovery ==
 * there was no malfeasance of an type alleged or found
 * the rules regarding names have been in flux since then claimant became a member
 * one senior experienced Assurer have verified the requested name in the account and has been accepted under the CARS program (section 'Reliable Statement') as reliable statement
 * this dispute is the result of learning at an ATE
 * from the general rule 'you can reduce information but never increase information' the removal of 'rmichel' in the account name doesn't conflict with other assurances made

== Ruling ==
Due to these facts I order the accounts name to be changed without the removal of any assurance or experience points. 
The respondant is requested to revoke currently valid certificates, however this is not an order and is left to the discretion of the respondant.
{{{
The certificates are not revoked mandatorily, because
 * the CPS only requires the name to be assured under Assurance Policy, which it was.
 * the Assurance Policy itself only requires that the Name, E-Mail and secondary distinguishing feature be known, which they are.
 * the current PracticeOnNames would suggest that the current account name is actually valid according to current policies and practices.
}}}

This ruling uses [[Arbitrations/a20090621.2]] as a precedent. Please see that ruling for rationale.

== Execution ==
 . 2009-10-12 (A): The claimant and Respondant has been notified of the ruling by E-Mail<<BR>>
 . 2009-10-12 (A): `support@c.o` has been requested to change the account by E-Mail<<BR>>
 . 2009-11-11 (A): resend execution request to `support@c.o`
 . 2009-11-12 (A): rcvd exec report from support@c.o
 . 2009-11-12 (A): report to involved parties
 . 2009-11-12 (A): closed

== Similar Cases ==

 . [[Arbitrations/a20090621.2|a20090621.2]] [[Arbitrations/a20090621.2|User not registered under full names ]]

----
 . CategoryArbitration
 . CategoryArbCaseAccountDataNameMismatch