- Case Number: a20091118.4
- Status: closed
- Claimants: Dirk Astrath
- Case Manager: Alexander Prinsier
- Date of arbitration start: 2009-12-05
- Date of ruling: 2009-12-25
- Case closed: 2009-12-25
- Complaint: Arbitrator slow
on 11-11-2009 i got a message via the cacert-support-list with the following content: from: email@example.com 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 ...
- Relief: TBD
Before: Arbitrator UlrichSchroeter (A), Respondent: SebastianKueppers (R), Claimant: Dirk Astrath (C), Case: a20091118.4
this is a seperated case from case a20091118.1
2009-11-18 (UlrichSchroeter): added this case to wiki, request for CM and A
- 2009-12-02 (A): i'll take care about this case
- 2009-12-02 (CM): I'll take this as CM
- 2009-12-04 (A): intermediate ruling 2 to seperate Part II and Part III of a20091118.1
- 2009-12-04 (C): accepts CCA / DRP under this arbitration by dispute-filing dated 2009-11-18
- 2009-12-05 (CM): sent init mail to (R)
- 2009-12-05 (R): accepts CCA / DRP under this arbitration
- 2009-12-21 (A): IRC interview with (R)
- 2009-12-21 (A): IRC chat log (German) forwarded to (CM)
- 2009-12-22 (A): IRC chat log (english translation) forwarded to (CM)
- 2009-12-23 (A): Intermediate ruling, notifying (R) and (CM) by email
- 2009-12-24 (R): releases all his actual arbitration cases by an email in the cacert-arbitration mailing list.
- 2009-12-24 (A): mail to (C) with question: do you accept the solution (A) worked out in the interview with (R) and do you accept his apologys?
- 2009-12-24 (C): i accept both, the apology and the solution ...
Seperated Arbitration case a20091118.1:
Part II, dispute against arbitrator of arbitration case a20090518.1
=> new case number a20091118.4
- minutes from IRC chatlog with (R)
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
- DRP gives no guideline to the question, how long a claimant has to wait before getting an answer or a ruling to his arbitration case.
The Case Manager Guidelines / Handbooks states
- the CM's role: "The CM's role is to monitor and assist the flow of the case".
- Section 2 "Selection of Arbitrator" in this document only covers the "find an arbitrator" process "If no Arbitrator accepts after one calendar month, the case is declared 'closed.'"
- Allocation of the Case: Once allocated to the Arbitrator, control passes from the Arbitration Manager to the new Arbitrator. The CM stays on the case, and now works with the Arbitrator.
- The first call: ... If any issues are determined, such as undue delays, they both have the responsibility to notify the Arbitration Manager.
The Guidelines for Support of Arbitration covers the Arbitration process from the support view only, and gives no addtl. inputs
At board meeting 2009-12-06 topic 2.3 Arbitration Progress
- There is one thing that has been asked of the board: what to do about inactive Arbitrators as the Board appoints Arbitrators, it probably has something to say on the retiring of inactive Arbitrators. So this is a request from Arbitration to the board to discuss this now.
- ernie and andreas comment that the process lacked documentation.
- General question as to what is defined for retiring or dropping Arbitrators. Nothing is defined.
- results in a 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) has been accepted.
Arbitration case a20090518.1 log states as of date 2009-12-24:
- Date of arbitration init: 2009-05-18
2009-10-12 (CM): UlrichSchroeter step-in as substitute
- 2009-10-12 (CM): request for actual state from before CM, A (init mails sent?)
- 2009-11-13 (CM): no answer from old (CM), no answer from (A), no answer from (C), no answer from (R)
- 2009-11-14 (CM): re-request infos from old (CM) and (A), awaiting reply till Sun 22, 2009
- 2009-11-14 (CM): sending initial mail to (C) and (R), awaiting reply till Sun 22, 2009
- 2009-11-15 (CM): reply from old (CM), no special info, except 'move on'
At board meeting 2009-12-20 topic 2.4 Arbitration and Support
- Floor to Urlich: On a couple of Arbitrations, little response from Arbitrator. Pings sent to Arbitrator and to DRO, no response.
- markl: this is an issue for the Arbitrators, not Board. u60: the board's last motion put this to the DRO, but it is not working. markl: then we need to revisit the DRO position; there would be wider problems than only pings.
- iang: Nick is not here right now, so hard to pursue. However it does seem that Nick is often only able to put in brief bursts of time.
- Discussion, search for facts. Easy cases. There are 2 non-working arbitrators in u60's opinion.
... later on ... iang proposes, "That, given m20090811.1, and today's informal information that some arbitrators are non-working, board requests an immediate update of the state and health of the Arbitration system from DRO, with a view to changing the roles and re-invigorating the process." Markl seconds, 4 AYEs. Chair declared motion carried as m20091220.3
- ... later on ... Other Business ... (DRO was online): u60: brings up the DRO discussion as per Agenda Item 2.4
- The issue was summarised.
- iang: who are the parties. Listed by u60. Therefore the issue is one of requesting the DRO to investigate the case of a non-working Arbitrator with a view to retirement. And the motion reflects that.
- Some discussion of problems with emails being sent, emails being received, emails being mislaid.
- Nick asked for a session in the private chat room. This was not supported by an agenda item. No minutes were kept of that session, no motions.
- Monday, Dec 21st 2009: cacert-board mailing list: From: DRO Subj: Resignation as Dispute Resolution Officer
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.
- Tools for managing arbitration cases are actualy:
- mailing lists:
private mailing list: input queue from support for new disputes
private mailing list: announcement and disccussion area for case managers and arbitrators
Overview of pending arbitration cases
Overview of closed arbitration cases
individual wiki page for an arbitration case
- scheduling and reminders needs to be self organized
- Cases management system with auto-reminders is not available
- mailing lists:
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
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)
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
- 2009-12-24 (R): releases all his actual arbitration cases by an email in the cacert-arbitration mailing list.
2009-12-25 (A): notification email to parties of arbitration case a20090313.1, wiki page changed
2009-12-25 (A): notification email to parties of arbitration case a20090406.2, wiki page changed
2009-12-25 (A): notification email to parties of arbitration case a20090424.1, wiki page changed
2009-12-25 (A): notification email to parties of arbitration case a20090427.2, wiki page changed
2009-12-25 (A): notification email to parties of arbitration case a20090513.1, wiki page changed
2009-12-25 (A): notification email to parties of arbitration case a20090518.1, wiki page changed, case merged to a20091118.1
2009-12-25 (A): notification email to parties of arbitration case a20090706.1, wiki page changed
2009-12-25 (A): notification email to parties of arbitration case a20090823.1, wiki page changed
- 2009-12-25 (A): case closed.