Dear support,

I'd like to file a dispute.

I tried to assure member Pieter van Beek on June 15 2009 and noticed he
has an incorrect first name recorded.
In his account his first name is "Pieter", but his drivers license
states his first name as "Petrus"

Regards, Lambert

Before: Arbitrator Ulrich Schroeter (A). Respondent: Pieter van Beek (R) Claimant: Lambert Hofstra (C) Case: a20090908.1

  1. 2009-09-08 (CM): requests for CCA / DRP ack to Claimant and Respondent
  2. 2009-09-08 (CM): (R) accepts CCA / DRP
  3. 2009-09-08 (A): I'll take care about that also as Arbitrator

When I first created an account at, I mistakenly entered
"Pieter" as my first name. While this is indeed my common first name in
daily life, officially my first name is "Petrus". At an ATA meeting with
Lambert in the Netherlands, I found out that this was against CACert

So, there's no "dispute" in the normal sense: I fully agree with
Lambert, and kindly ask you that my first name in the database be
changed into "Petrus" instead of "Pieter".

The reason I'm not simply creating a new account with correct data is
that have already been asserted, am an assurer, and already assured
several other people.

Best regards,
Pieter (Petrus) van Beek


so i came here to following intermediate Ruling:

Intermediate Ruling

I hereby order that - one of the "senior experienced assurer" (see CC party) have to contact Pieter (Petrus) van Beek to get an addtl. 2nd assurance under the CARS [1] program as a VIP assurance [2] The assurance should have to be done upto end of this month (31.10.2009). The assurer have to report to me directly with a reliable statement (see CARS) that Pieter (Petrus) van Beek full name is written in one of his ID documents as

[1] CARS (short: CAcert Assurer Reliable Statement):

[2] VIP assurance: see


Due to these facts I order the accounts name to be changed without the removal of any assurance or experience points. The claimant is requested to revoke currently valid certificates, however this is not an order and is left to the discretion of the claimant.

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.


Similar Cases

Arbitrations/a20090908.1 (last edited 2009-12-09 04:53:05 by UlrichSchroeter)