Before: Arbitrator UlrichSchroeter (A), Respondent: Maxim B (R), Claimant: Karsten D (C), Case: a20100216.1

History Log

Original Dispute, Discovery (Private Part)

EOT Private Part



Considering the time, the dispute has been filed, the name variations allowed to use are in flux since AP rollout in spring 2009 did happen. Starting with the precedent case a20090618.12 CAcert moves to focus on the Assurance Statement that goes some distance to detune or soften the need for pure identity documents:

Precedent case a20090618.12 gives the deliberations to the variations of names.

CAcert is operating in a multinational environment. The rules that affect all countries must be carefully checked if they respect the conventions of the CAcert community. In a lot of circumstances we have learned that some rules that work in some countries are a "no go" in other countries/regions, that are covered by AP 2.2. Multiple Names and variations

Later in year 2010 within Arbitration case a20091118.2 discovery, we've received an useful link to the Nederlandse Voornamen Databank to also give Assurers a tool at hand, who are unfamiliar with the Dutch common short Givenname variations, to search for the name in question, to get the Givenname, as used in ID Documents. So this should give an answer to the question: "How am I to decide which variants are acceptable and which are not?"

Remember, we're talking about the question regarding the Assurance Statement, if you can give an Assurance Statement or not, and not the question of a precise name here.

So the question moves to the question: Can we bring the guy reliable into Arbitration, if he uses his Dutch common short Givenname variation ?

The answer is simply Yes. You've filed a dispute against respondent, and respondent accepted CCA/DRP under this arbitration, answered all questions, was helpful in the discovery process, so I have to state, that we got respondent into this Arbitration case.

In the meanwhile PracticeOnNames has been updated with all the relevant infos we have on relaxed name rules (AP 2.2 variations) and also will be updated if new infos received. So this document can be seen as a living document.

With the introduction of relaxed rules, the task for Assurers also increased regarding evidence gathering. This means, if you as Assurer makes a complete documentation, we, the Community are protected. This forces Assurers to docuement all the names as read in the IDdoxs. With this documentation, we have the evidence we need, to allow relaxed name variations. The evidence gathering in the discovery process shows, that mostly all Assurers makes a note on their CAP forms, about the names, they've read in respondents IDdoxs. So therefor, his full name could be confirmed within this Arbitration case.

One more task has been added to the Assurers in the Assurance process, to inform the user about his right, to use Dutch common short Givenname variation in his account by following AP 2.2, but this may lead to problems with Assurers who are not so familiar with the Dutch common short Givenname variation definition, and this may result in lesser Assurance points. If once the user has been adviced and the user decided one of both options, the Assurer can proceed.

So this opens the usable name variations, respondent can use:

There are 2 general options:

  1. daily used common short givenname -or-
  2. the not so daily used long givenname as shown in IDdoxs

This gives 6 options, that are allowed by current AP, AH and PracticeOnNames:

  1. NL short Givenname + Lastname
    • this means, leave the name as it is, follows option a.
  2. NL short Givenname + Middlename + Lastname
    • as 1.) + addtl. Middlename
  3. NL short Givenname + Middlename abbreviated + Lastname
    • as 1.) + addtl. short Middlename
  4. Long Givenname + Middlename + Lastname
    • full name as in passport, following option b.
  5. Long Givenname + Middlename abbreviated + Lastname
    • full name as in passport with abbreviated Middlename, following option b.
  6. Long Givenname + Lastname
    • full givename as in passport, w/o Middlename, following option b.


Frankfurt/Main, 2011-03-21


Similiar Cases


User has non-validated middle name in account


User wishes to remove middle names


unverified middle name in account


unverified middle name in account


User has middle and last names switched around


Assurer with names switched


assurance with out-of-order user name and possible issuance of wrongly named certificates


Assurance with mixed up first ans last name


surname and given name switched (init)


name swapped in an account (init)


surname, givenname switched around, user has 100 pts (init)


User not registered under full name


Member requests name change after marriage


Correction of Givenname in his Account


Assurance with an additional Suffix

Arbitrations/a20100216.1 (last edited 2011-03-21 19:58:15 by UlrichSchroeter)