• Arbitrations
• a20111128.5

• Case Number: a20111128.5
• Status: closed
• Claimants: Lynda
• Respondents: CAcert

• Initial Case Manager: JoelHatsch

• Case Manager: UlrichSchroeter

• Arbitrator: EvaStöwe

• Date of arbitration start: 2013-11-27
• Date of ruling: 2013-11-30
• Case closed: 2013-12-04
• Complaint: Account removal
• Relief: TBD

Before: Arbitrator Eva Stöwe (A), Respondent: CAcert (R), Claimant: Lynda (C), Case: a20111128.5

History Log

• 2011-12-18 (issue.c.o) case s20111128.3135

• 2011-12-18 (ICM): added to wiki, request for CM / A
• 2011-12-18 (C) : I don't want my account removed
• 2011-12-24 (ICM) : sent email, requesting clear info about what's really desired

• 2012-01-07 (CM): trying to bring the case file in an order to understand what happens, what has been written by whom, to whom and when to clarify if this case can be refered back to (Support) to check if this case can be handled under precedent a20111128.3. It seems documentation isn't yet complete. (iCM) email request is missing in documentation, response from (C) is missing regarding the request from (iCM) to (C) dated 2011-12-24. Informations out of OTRS ticket notes doesn't give enough infos, that this case can be moved back to SE. Also two requests by (C) gives no specific or an unclear relief that can be interpreted differently - delete my information is quite unprecise, the 2nd request only referes to newsletter user account settings.

• 2013-11-27 (A): take care of this case as A
• 2013-11-27 (A): askes support about state of account and newsletter-settings
• 2013-11-27 (Support): cannot detect recent activity on account, no CCA, one assurance older than 7 years
• 2013-11-30 (A): ruling (included in init mail)
• 2013-12-04 (A): close case

Original Dispute, Discovery (Private Part) (optional)

• Link to Arbitration case a20111128.5 (Private Part), Access for (CM) + (A) only)

EOT Private Part

Discovery

• C wrote some mails complaining about getting mails / newsletters from CAcert.
• C makes it clear that she does not want to get any more mails from CAcert.
• When asked if C wants to get account closed, the answer showes a tendency to yes but is not clearly stated like this.
• Communication with iCM suggests that CCA was not given.
• Communication with iCM suggests that assurances were given.

Since the main interest of C is to not get any more mails from CAcert, the init-mailing will be delayed a little bit so that it can be combined with an information about what actions would be needed to close the account.

• C has given one assurance that is older than 7 years at Nov 2013
• Since the assurance is older than 7 years, according to AP C does not have the obligation to keep the CAPs safe anymore.
• C may have destroyed the CAP form or may do so at any time according to AP.
• So we cannot rely on those CAP form.
• Because of this, we do not need to collect the CAP, and we do not have further need to contact C, to secure our WoT.
• C can be released out of CCA (if it ever was applaiable to C) at any time.
• It is unlikely that CCA or AP ever were accepted by C.

• Nothing else would prevent the deletion of the account according to precedent case a20111128.3

Ruling

Hereby I rule:

• If C does not state clearly that C wants to hold on the account until
  • 2013-12-14

• C's CAcert-account should be closed by support analog to a20111128.3 but without sending further mails to the owner of the account, if possible.

• In the case of account closure, and if CCA is appliable to C, it should be terminated at 2013-12-15.

Cologne, 2013-11-30

Execution

• 2013-11-29 (C): don't want account kept
• 2013-12-02 (A): execution request to support
• 2013-12-02 (Support): executed - is CAP destoyed?
• 2013-12-03 (A): informed C about closure of accound and that the CAP form sould be destroyed
• 2013-12-03 (C): confirms destruction of CAP form
• 2013-12-03 (A): confirms destruction of CAPs to support

(date discrepancies because of differing local time zones)

Similiar Cases

• CategoryArbitration

• CategoryArbCaseAccountDelAssurer