Before: Arbitrator UlrichSchroeter (A), Respondent: CAcert (R), Claimant: <anonymized> (C), Case: a20110108.1

History Log

Original Dispute, Discovery (Private Part)

EOT Private Part


Intermediate Ruling

I hereby order

to (C),

to (AS1),

to the Arbitrator,

Frankfurt/Main, 2011-04-11

Intermediate Ruling #2

A request has been received by Claimant to (a) anonymize user data regarding this arbitration case and (b) to completely delete users account data.

I hereby rule the following. In respect of (a), that user's name should be anonymized as requested by Claimant. Claimant's request to anonymize his user data does not influence the running process.

In respect of (b), the request by Claimant to delete complete user account data cannot be complied with until CCA termination requirements by the Assurer (Claimant) are fulfilled. Claimant is still bound to the CAcert Community Agreement (CCA) and Dispute Resolution Policy (DRP)

Intermediate ruling order #1 dated 2011-04-11 is still in effect.

Frankfurt/Main, 2011-04-12


Claimant has made claim against 2-5 unnamed members. These claims I cannot verify at the moment. This does not mean that the claims are false, rather that verification w/o further information (eg respondent names) is difficult, and verification is itself probably subject to another Arbitration case that needs to be filed as a separate dispute by the Claimant.

Despite that, the information gives some background for Claimant's request to anonymize his user data and his request to delete his account data.

Claimant's request includes 4 reliefs a. to delete completely the user account data b. to not further contact the claimant c. to not engage in discovery of (C)'s leisure activities d. to anonymize users data on the ticket (arbitration file)

Relief d. has been accepted and executed.

Relief a. and b. impacts the proper functioning of arbitration in a way that would materially stall the process. It is therefore denied.

I have to remind (C) that his agreement with our binding CAcert Community Agreement also covers Termination and ask for patience in this process:

Claimant accepted CCA/DRP under this arbitration. See notes at A.


In the discovery process of the running arbitration case, it has been revealed, that Claimant Is an Assurer and has made 59 Assurances. When an Assurer leaves CAcert, this renders damage to the WoT. So therefore CCA 3.3 Termination has to go through Arbitration, reviewed by an Arbitrator, in order to deal with the damage to the WoT in a satisfactory way. In this process, the Arbitrator has to weigh the Claimant's interests and also the interests of the WoT. This cannot be denied by the Claimant.

One of the obligations of the Assurer is to keep the CAP forms for 7 years, to respond to Arbitrator requests regarding a completed Assurance, and to deliver evidence in an Arbitration process.

Therefore, once the CAP forms are received by CAcert, Claimants request on relief a. and b. can be complied, but not before. Relief a. matches the dispute filing under this Arbitration, and Relief b. cannot be fulfilled until the running arbitration case is closed:

Further explanation.

Claimants request to revoke all his completed assurances is not an option, as this leaves an unacceptable amount of member accounts in an undefined state (losing Assurers status, losing assured status, thus has further influences on issued certificates (2 year vs. 1/2 year expiry date)).

By unacceptable I mean any amount in excess of 5 effected user accounts which needs manual repair of the users account state. Discovery in the running arbitration case revealed an amount of greater than 40 user accounts ┬┤that are effected in case of a complete revocation of all assurances given by Claimant.

Therefore, Claimant received a process plan dated 2011-02-10 with 2 options: a) to keep the CAP forms for 7 years and respond on further dispute filing cases on Arbitrator requests, or b) to transfer his collected CAP forms to the Arbitrator of the running case, in order to handle requests of other Arbitrators on behalf of the Claimant.

The latter option has the advantage that Claimant's obligation to keep his email account in good working order and respond on every single Arbitrators request is dropped. Further risks and liabilities of not responding onto Arbitrator requests are also decreased significantly.

Claimants response can be summarized as "is not comfortable with option a) neither option b)."

The last renewal of request with offer to Claimant to choose between 2 options, a) to keep the CAP forms for 7 years, or b) to send in the CAP forms by adding long explenations, added translation to DE, with deadline set to 14 days was dated 2011-03-15 w/o further response by Claimant. This I have to assess as a disrespect of Arbitrators authority under DRP 2.1

By denying the process plan options (2011-02-10) and ignoring the reminder request (2011-03-15) with deadline set, there is no way around to transfer the CAP forms back to CAcert as ruled under intermediate ruling #1. The only question that is still left open, how?

Contact to Assurers who can help

Therefore I've started investigating for Assurers who are able and can easily meet with the Claimant. This represents a new option, (c), for transfering his CAP forms and have them maintained within the CAcert community as they are intended to be.

Relief c. (to not discover (C)'s leisure activities) arises out of the attempt by Arbitrator to find an Assurer to get in contact with the Claimant did not respond to Arbitrators request's and therefore breaches provisions under DRP 2.1 to send in the CAP forms as requested. It should be noted that the question to the Assurer was sent 2011-04-04:

This is a legitimate way to prepare an offer for a face to face meeting between the Claimant and another Assurer to fulfill the Arbitration requirement to transfer the requested CAP forms to CAcert.

It is admitted that it is my fault to not first contact you, to present the offer for a meeting with an Assurer to deliver the requested CAP forms to CAcert. For my apology I only can note that the expected prospective F2F meeting with a proposed Assurer potentialy is soon, and your unresponsiveness regarding the transfer of the requested CAP forms.

The option to follow the request dated 2011-03-15 to send in the CAP forms to the given address is still open to you.

Also, as an alternative, the option to meet another Assurer is still open to you.

What is not open, is to not transfer the requested CAP forms to an appropriate agent of the CAcert community.

In principle, your request to not involve leisure activities in this arbtiration is accepted as a generally reasonable request. However, given the uncooperativeness, this Arbitration will continue to seek alternative and novel ways to resolve the difficulties. Therefore relief is deferrred until you have accepted and acted on the request on deliver the requested CAP forms.

Please consider one of these options at your earliest convenience so that we can wrap this up.

Notes A

The Claimant is bound to keep his email account in good working order until the running arbitration case is ruled and closed. To keep his email account in good working order means also, user is bound to receive and respond to Arbitrator requests (DRP 2.1).

This general requirement is backed up by many provisions in policies and agreements, including:

[German Translation]

Frankfurt/Main, 2011-04-13



Similiar Cases


User requests to delete account with Assurance Points


Assurer requests to delete account


User requests to delete account with no Assurance Points


User wants account deleted, no Assurance Points, no certificates


User wants account deleted, no Assurance Points, no certificates

see also: Arbitrations Training Lesson 20 - Arbitration Case - Delete Account Request

Arbitrations/a20110108.1 (last edited 2014-05-11 14:53:04 by MartinGummi)