• Arbitrations
• a20120115.2

• Case Number: a20120115.2
• Status: running
• Claimants: Nick B
• Respondents: Russ H

• Initial Case Manager: UlrichSchroeter

• Case Manager: PhilippDunkel

• Arbitrator: AlexRobertson

• Date of arbitration start: 2012-10-28
• Date of ruling: 2012-11-02
• Case closed: 201Y-MM-DD
• Complaint: Name mismatch, Name change requested
• Relief: TBD

Before: Arbitrator AlexRobertson (A), Respondent: Russ H (R), Claimant: Nick B (C), Case: a20120115.2

History Log

• 2012-01-15 (issue.c.o) case s20120115.61

• 2012-01-21 (iCM): added to wiki, request for CM / A

• 2012-10-28 (A): AlexRobertson takes case as (A) Appoints PhilippDunkel (CM)

• 2012-11-02 (A): Init mailing 2, responses from (C) and (R), excerpt of advice from Assurance Officer (AO)
• 2012-11-02 (A): Ruling
• 2012-12-13 (A): General Ruling updated following advice from (AO)
• 2013-01-23 (A): General Ruling added to assurer's handbook
• 2013-03-02 (A): Closed

Original Dispute, Discovery (Private Part)

• Link to Arbitration case a20120115.2 (Private Part)

EOT Private Part

Discovery

• (A) Init mailing 2

  Dear Nick, Dear Russ
  
  You should have both received the mailing “RE: Arbitration case a20120115.2 – Disclosure” and be aware of what is currently held. There is a final step to the initial mailing so….
  
    5. The next thing I would like both sides to do if they wish to, is to prepare a short
       email that outlines their viewpoint. No longer than a page, please!
  
  I believe it is not needed – but I have to ask. If you intend to present a viewpoint, please do so by 17:00 UTC 2012-11-09 (November 9th)
  
  Assuming I do not hear further from either of you by then, it is my intent to rule that short forms of names are allowable in the account name provided that the assurer is confident that the account, the individual and the documentation presented at assurance relate to the same individual. There is already precedent for this and there has been a section “English Language short forms of names” in the Discussion area of the Allowed Country Variations in the Assurers handbook for several months now.
  
  Best Regards
  
  Alex Robertson
  CACert Arbitrator

• 2012-11-02 (A) Response to init mailing 2 from (C)

  I agree with your proposed ruling.
  
  Nick

• 2012-11-02 (A) Response to init mailing 2 from (R)

  On Fri, 2 Nov 2012, Alex Robertson wrote:
  
  >     email that outlines their viewpoint. No longer than a page, please!
  
  > Assuming I do not hear further from either of you by then, it is my 
  > intent to rule that short forms of names are allowable in the account 
  > name provided
  
    ... my review of the prior cases indicate that this was likely.  I concur in that 'rule of reasonableness' result as a summary disposition to this matter, and so request such
  
  - -- Russ h

• 2012-11-02 (A) Extract from response to request for advice from Assurance Officer (AO)

  In developing relaxed rules, we've passed the
  STRICT times, but didn't yet left it realy
  
  First introduction, what we're understanding today as "relaxed rules"
  was given by ruling
  https://wiki.cacert.org/Arbitrations/a20090618.12
  and advanced in
  https://wiki.cacert.org/Arbitrations/a20091128.2
  
  Later on, a variation with Greek names has been added
  to came over to a general practice => relaxed rules
  
  The main problem here:
  within Assurance Area and ATE team and Education team
  this new "relaxed rules" way has been understood,
  but has not that mass rolled out into the Community
  (as most Assurers are Germans and therefor STRICT thinking :-P )
  its not reached by the mass of Assurers (as only little
  percentages attends ATEs)
  
  So the next step was brought about 1 year later:
  saying ... you can assure everything ... as long you
  document clearly what you've read in the assurees IdDoc
  and as long we can be sure, that we can bring the guy
  into arbitration
  
  this sea-shift in Assurance has been introduced, but probably
  isn't yet realy understood by the majority of the Community
  
  So there is no open question about English short name variation
  the only topic that is still open is to ban the "Nickname" STRICT rule
  
  What we shall prevent is any "English" variation in general!
  as CAcert main language is English, the main area is based
  on Common law, so all policies references back to Common law
  
  So here I've started with the General Hyphen rule
  that overwrites local German law (!)
  We, in CAcert allow any variations given with Hyphens in names.
  so following the basic Common usage with hyphens (as they are
  very, very unusual in English names) to prevent any exception
  and another exception, and one more exception ...
  We have only one rule about Hyphens in names.
  This is the international CAcert rule for Hyphens in names
  valid for every member no matter from which country a user is from.
  
  
  Fact given: AP 2.2 allows country variations (and others too)
  => AP 2.2. Multiple Names and variations
  http://www.cacert.org/policy/AssurancePolicy.php#2.2._Multiple_Names_and_v
  ariations
  The trick is, how we can train the assurers understanding this
  new philosophy in transition from "strict rules" to the "relaxed rules"
  nowadays
  
  We shall move forward with lesser exceptions as any exceptions complicates
  the assurance process. Every exception gets overseen in an assurance
  as we have to distribute each exception out to the community.
  
  Move the topic of Assurance from "identity check" over to a "CAcert
  assurance"
  that means, most of the assurance process is to disclose the R/L/O
  and get a feeling, if the assuree accepts our rules including accepts
  our internal arbitration system and make your assurance statement (-> APs)
  based on these facts
  eg split your assurance points level of your assurance statement
     into eg 80% CCA agreement and 20% on pure identity check
  
  example
  so if you have the feeling, that an assuree do not realy agrees to the CCA
  but Id check was 100% ok ... give only 20% of your APs =>
  35 pts max = 100% ... /5 = 7 pts

Ruling

• This case is a essentially repeat of earlier cases, notably 20090618.12 and a20091128.2 so the general precedent exists that short forms of names are allowed to be recognised in the Account Name and I rule that it is allowable here that Nick may assure Russ despite the name difference between account and ID.

• Based on the more general case made by the Assurance Officer with the introduction of "Relaxed Rules" for assurance, I also rule that any assurer can legitimately assure a person where the name on the assuree's account does not tally exactly with their ID Documentation provided that the following conditions are met

  1. the assurer documents exactly the names that were seen on the assuree's ID documents

  2. the assurer is convinced that the Account name, the assuree and the documentation all relate to the same individual and that the Account name is reasonable with respect to the assuree's name (If the names are vastly different and particularly if the account name is that of a well-known person, alarm bells should ring in the assurer's mind!)

  3. that the Risks/Liabilities/Obligations are disclosed to and understood by the assuree
  4. the assurer is satisfied that the assuree accepts the CCA
  5. the assurer is convinced that the assuree can be brought into arbitration if needed.
• If these conditions are not met, there is the fallback option of filing a dispute for arbitration.
• According to AP 2.2. Multiple Names and variations, I've set this case as a precedent under "different country variations" for Assurers
• This needs to be documented in the Assurance Handbook.
• Alex Robertson
• CAcert Arbitrator
• Crewe UK
• November 2nd, 2012
• General ruling updated December 13th, 2012

Execution

• 2013-01-23 (A) added to PracticeOnNames section of Assurer's handbook

Similiar Cases

• CategoryArbitration

• CategoryArbCaseAccountDataNameModificationsRequested