Before: Arbitrator PietStarrveld (A), Respondent: Michal O(R), Claimant: CAcert (C1), Case: a20120305.2

Former parties: Marcus M. for Support (C2).

History Log

Link to Arbitration case a20120305.2 (Private Part), Access for (CM) + (A) only)

EOT Private Part

Original Dispute

Discovery 1

The CCA violation dispute against R that Support filed on 2012-03-05 is the Original Dispute of this case (a20120305.2).

Its traces go back to earlier assurance revocation requests submitted to Support by two assurers of R. For the sake of clarity, these assurers will be referred to in this context as Assurer 1 and Assurer 2. Assurer 1 in his revocation request states that some data (i.e. the suffix) in the account that R has created isn't backed by the ID that R has shown during their face-to-face meeting. Assurer 2 in his revocation request refers to a precedents case and doesn't specify a particular reason for wanting to revoke the assurance over R.

Neither Assurer 1 nor Assurer 2 are currently mentioned as parties (claimants) in the Original Dispute underlying this case. Nor are they parties in any other open arbitration cases.

Apart from this case, R is currently not a party in any other open arbitration cases.

Before the CCA violation was filed by Support, the issue ticket bounced back and forth between Arbitration and Support several times. To help put the CCA violation dispute as filed by Support into perspective, the following table summarizes the relevant communications that were shared between various parties:





Assurer 1

Requests Support to revoke assurance on R because some data (i.e. the suffix) in the account that R has created isn't backed by the ID that R has shown during the face-to-face meeting


Assurer 2

Requests Support to revoke assurance on R using precedent case a20100210.2 - Birthdate error (with assurance points)



Replies Assurer 2 that Support is unable to revoke the assurance using precedent case a20100210.2 but will start a dispute against R using precedent case a20110610.1 - Removal of suffix



Sends out initial mail to R to point out that the suffix of the account that R has created isn't backed by the ID that R has shown during face-to-face meeting with assurers and suggests solution



Not having received a reply from R now sends reminder to R to again ask R about the suffix not matching R's ID



Files the actual complaint of this case, a CCA violation dispute against R for not replying to Support's requests for info about the suffix not matching R's ID



Member of Arbitration dismisses case 'for the moment' and moves it back to Support to check whether case may be handled according to precedent case a20110610.1



Sends case notification mail to C2 and R, arbitration-list and arbitration-archives



Confirms to Support that the 'wrong suffix' is just his nickname and he wants to have it removed



Informs R that case has been moved to Arbitration already and is now awaiting the appointment of a case manager and arbitrator

R's reply on 2012-05-04 to the initial arbitration case notification mail sent by iCM on 2012-05-03 constitutes evidence that R, contrary to the complaint in the CCA violation dispute filed by Support on 2012-03-05, apparently was 'keeping his email adress in good order'.

Discovery 2

FrOSCon 2016 session - future of 25 arbitration cases from leaving team members

At FrOSCon 2016 members of Arbitration, Board and Support took part in a session on possible withdrawal of cases by CAcert(Support)/CAcert and prior clarification about claimants. On 2016-08-23 the initial report of that FrOSCon 2016 session, Protocol - FrOSCon session - future of 25 arbitration cases from leaving team members, was posted on the board and arbitration mailing lists for review and discussion.

The executive "decisions" taken during the FrOSCon 2016 Session (and also regarding additional cases) were confirmed by board motion m20160921.2 on 2016-09-25:

Resolved, that board withdraws the cases as mentioned in the emails and acting for CAcert as claimant of that cases.

The detailed background, proceedings and the initial report of the FrOSCon 2016 session are publicly available as FrOSCon 2016 Session Report.

FrOSCon 2016 session - review of case a20120305.2 - "CCA Violation"

At the FrOSCon 2016 Session case a20120305.2 - "CCA Violation" was put up for review as all who were present at the session agreed that it fitted the criteria for review:

For this case this meant that Support would now assume the role of claimant and that the original claimant should be considered as former claimant, having been dismissed from the dispute.

The initial subsequent review of this case at FrOSCon 2016 made Support decide to withdraw the case as claimant. This decision was based on the information that was available in the Public part of the case log at that time. Additional information from the Private part of the case log however emerged during the preparation of the FrOSCon 2016 session report. This additional information led to the suggestion to further review the case.

To enable all reviewers to have a proper view on what led to this case a summary of the relevant communications in this case has been added to the Public part of the case log (see above: Discovery 1).

Here's the relevant section of the FrOSCon 2016 report posted on the board and arbitration mailinglists on 2016-08-23:

"CCA Violation"

 * summary of dispute:
"Account created by user contains data that are not met by CAP form nor
ID shown during face to face meeting."
This was filed after two members had contacted support about issues with
that assurance and when the member was not answering support

 * support:
a) there could be issues with email provider if someone does not answer
b) there is no requirement to answer support, only requirement to answer
c) old assurances could sometimes be an issue, because AP (and CCA) was
installed only later and some points had to be clarified, first, this is
known and it's probably hard to get CAP forms or anything, now, if older
then 7 years
=> withdraw
 * board: ok

[note of [..] when preparing protocol:
In the discussion there was the assumption that the case was filed
because the member did not response to support, but some deeper reading
when preparing the protocol revealed something else. (There are multiple
somewhat unorthodox sorted mails in the private part of the case file
and not enough information in the public part.)
I suggest to review the decision because of this.]

FrOSCon 2016 session - review of case a20120305.2 - "CCA Violation" - comments received

The review of this case as reported on the board and arbitration mailinglists didn't lead to comments.



Precedents Cases Mentioned


Birthdate error (with assurance points). Revoke assurance 24 hours / 3 days / 7 days after an event - Precedents Case {i}


Removal of suffix - Precedents Case {i}

Similiar Cases


domain dispute not solved by auto-domain-dispute


Arbitration request: wrong DoB moved to Administrative Delete Account


Name dispute, User did not responded to supports emails


violation of CCA 2.5.2


Domain dispute, turned to CCA violation, administrative delete account


Delete Account cases which may be handled by SE - No Assurances given, no certs or certs expired - Precedents Case {i}

Arbitrations/a20120305.2 (last edited 2016-10-19 18:15:48 by EvaStöwe)