on 11-11-2009 i got a message via the cacert-support-list with the following content:

from:    website-form@cacert.org schrieb:

> > From: S* H*
> > Email: s*@h*
> > Subject: Rounding down of assurance points
> >
> > Message:
> > Hi,
> >
> > I used the TTP method to get assured. When it was put into the
> > [...]
> > Best regards
> > CAcert Support Team

[...]

however ... in detail:

i want to file a dispute against several people:

(1)     [...]

(2)     against sebastian k. ... since he is the arbitrator in the
above case ... and did not rule anything since may to ensure, that ttp is frozen.

(3)     [...]

------------------

[...]
according the dispute against sebastian take care, that the time-frame is MUCH TOO LONG ... especially in this case, where assurances were made AGAINST the assurance policy. there may be other cases (date-of-birth, additional name) where it doesn't care, if the case is ruled a week or month earlier or later.

[...]

according a20090518.1 there had been changes in the wiki-entry in may ... since then nothing happened there ... now we have november. the only change there was an entry in october where ulrich stepped in as case manager. there had been no answer to his request by the arbitrator or former case manager until now ...

have a nice day

ps: ... and yes ... i accept the CCA ...

Before: Arbitrator UlrichSchroeter (A), Respondent: SebastianKueppers (R), Claimant: Dirk Astrath (C), Case: a20091118.4

History Log

Discovery

minutes to the interview (A) - (R) on Monday, Dec 21st 2009

(12:59:40) session starts
 (R) informs (A) about his unreliable internet connection
 (A) informs (R) about the previous board meeting motion 
     "The committee considers it has the authority to remove
      arbitrators, but resolves to only do so on advice of
      the Dispute Resolution Officer and after considering
      any written or oral submissions made by the arbitrator
      in question." motion m20091206.2.
      https://community.cacert.org/board/motions.php?motion=m20091206.2
 (A) informs (R) also about DRO resignation
     Nick: "Resignation as Dispute Resolution Officer", Mo Dec 21st, 2009
 (R) states:
     "No, this i didn't noticed.... I'm subscribed to such many
     lists, to get the (underlying) relevant infos, but flooded
     with other mails (thats also a cause, why i didn't get my
     cases organized, the informations that i need, are obfuscated
     by the other informations)"
 (A) "What is your point of view to your state as Arbitrator ?"
 (R) "At the moment i'm busy with other tasks, from within and out of CAcert."
 (A) "or differently in demand: do you see yourself at the moment
      or in the future in the situation to still continue with the
      Arbitrators job ?"
 (R) "At the moment I'll rather concentrate on my work as AO, OA and
      Assurer. I still want to continue further as Arbitrator,
      but first i'll reduce my workload (heavily)"
 (A) "point: reducing workload. As i've counted it correctly,
      you're active on 8 arbitration cases, right?"
 (R) "Yes, round about"
 (A) "Are you ready to release some cases?"
 (R) "Yes, perhaps it is better for the objectivity, if i
      release all my actual cases and another arbitrator
      takes care about these cases. I will pickup some
      fresh new cases if I can guarantee to handle these
      cases in a timely manner"
 (A) "ok, ... then i'll propose, that you write a mail in the
      cacert-arbitration mailing list, like a CM ... with the
      list of your cases, where you are listed as arbitrator
      that are open/running with the search of a new arbitrator
 (R) "ok, i will do this, will becoming today afternoon/evening"
(13:39:02) session finished

I hereby resign as Dispute Resolution Officer, effective upon
appointment of my successor.

I intend to continue to do my best in serving as a member of the 
commitee, I simply do not have the time to dedicate to being the Dispute 
Resolution Officer also, especially given the current situation of the 
arbitration backlog.

Intermediate Ruling

I hereby order, that (R) releases all his actual cases by writing a mail in the cacert-arbitration mailing list, like a CM mail ... with the list of his cases, where he is listed as arbitrator with open/running state with the search of a new arbitrator. This intermediate ruling is the result of the agreement we've reached within the IRC chat session dated Mon Dec 21st, 2009. The fast execution of this intermediate ruling, i will handle as a positive signal from (R) to still continue and be available as arbitrator. Frankfurt/Main, Dec 23rd, 2009

Ruling

The respondent releases all his actual eight arbitration cases with state init, running or open where he is the appointed arbitrator due to date Dec 24, 2009 by sending an email to the cacert-arbitration mailing list with the request to find new arbitrators for these cases. As this ruling has been executed after the intermediate ruling, i decide further, that (R) can still remain as arbitrator in the Arbitration team within the CAcert's arbitration forum. However, this is an admonishment to (R), to only pickup cases, if he can forsee to handle new arbitration cases in a timely manner.

A case management system (ticket system?) with auto-reminders isn't available to the Case Managers and Arbitrators, so the cases needs to be handled manualy. Therefor I further rule, that the role of Case Managers has to be expanded by activly monitor and control the overall arbitration process by keep an eye on the rolling of the case not only at the beginning and at the finishing phase of a case. The Case Managers have to send a reminder or a request for progress report to the Arbitrator of the case he is working on, if a case stales for at least 1 month. These activities from CM has to be logged into the history log of an arbitration case. If no response from an arbitrator has been received, its the Case Managers duty to report this to the DRO. A procedure needs to be written and added to the Case Manager / Arbitration Handbook / Guideline a) how to identify non-working arbitrators b) how to solve such a problem (i.e. search for another arbitrator, move over to another arbitrator)

Justification

As covered by the Discovery process, the overall arbitration process stales for the arbitration case a20090518.1. (CM) of a20090518.1 stales at work, (A) of a20090518.1 who is (R) in this case, stales at work, and the last possibility to handle, DRO also stales at work.

Therefor i've picked up the interview method to handle this case. From the DRO's procedure of an hearing of (R) that relates to the board motion m20091206.2 "The committee considers it has the authority to remove arbitrators, but resolves to only do so on advice of the Dispute Resolution Officer and after considering any written or oral submissions made by the arbitrator in question.".

The interview results in the agreement published in the intermediate ruling. The execution that has been made by the (R) in the meanwhile, is a strong positive signal, that (R) can still remains as an arbitrator in the Arbitration team within the CAcert's arbitration forum.

As its not only the arbitrators fault, that these cases stales, I came to the conclusion, at the time of writing the DRP, no procedures has been forseen how to handle staled arbitration cases and how to handle with non-working DRO's. Nor has this find a way into a Handbook or Guideline for Case Managers and Arbitrators. So this lacks a procedure how to identify non-working arbitrators, and how to handle these cases. By a board motion, the board found out their duty to handle not only the appointment of arbitrators, but also their removal. On the other side, slow responses from claimants and respondents has been often seen in practice. Such cases can be identified by progress reports. Vacation times, private issues, busy by job may also possible causes for staled cases. Logging helps to prevent staling of cases over a long time. 'cause there is no auto-reminder from within a case management system, this needs to be handled manualy and selforganized. The only tools that assists case managers and arbitrators are the mailing lists and the wiki.

The arbitration blockage that has been identified at around mid of Oct 2009 was not only a problem within the arbitration system. It was also a problem within the support area. The support area problem now has been fixed. The workflow of mails from support to the arbitration team, and also arbitrators execution orders workflow now has been fixed mid Nov / Dec 2009. The arbitration system needs some modifications to prevent stalling of arbitration cases. The backlog, that has been build since spring 2009, cannot only be fixed by appointment of new arbitrators. They also needs to be educated. And addtl. methods needs to be implemented about reminders and reporting.

The dispute filing to this case was a point of an iceberg of an overall problem within the arbitration forum, that identifies problems about Case Managers, Arbitrators and DRO, missing procedures, lack of informations, best practices. So therefor this ruling covers not only one special arbitration case, it covers also arbitration processes.

Frankfurt/Main, Dec 25th, 2009

Execution

Similiar Cases

a20091126.2

removal of in-active case managers and arbitrators procedure

Arbitrations/a20091118.4 (last edited 2009-12-25 17:04:40 by UlrichSchroeter)