Before: Arbitrator EvaStöwe (A) - former Arbitrator MartinGummi, Respondent: CAcert (R), Claimant: CAcert (Support) - formerly: Marcus M (C), Case: a20131128.1

History Log

Now: A: Eva Stöwe, CM: PietStarreveld

Now: claim is understood to be filed for support and not as a personal case and will be continued like this, claimant clarified to be: CAcert (Support), relief to be clarified

Now: board (as head of executive area) took over role of claimant from support

Link to Arbitration case a20131128.1 (Private Part), Access for (CM) + (A) only

EOT Private Part

Original Dispute

while working on a support case  for  Arbitration a20120409.1 I stumbled over the fact that it was possible to add two (2) assurances to one account back in 2006.
To my knowledge this should never happen.

My request is that arbitration and software should check how many accounts have issued two or more valid assurance from one assurer to the same assuree.
In a second step the outcome should be analysed and see if there is a need for a clean up and how this clean up should take place.

Software should provide the needed SQL statements.


Intermediate Ruling I

Critical team should execute the following sql-query.

   1 select count(*) from `notary` where `deleted` = 0 and `method` = 'Face to Face Meeting' group by `to`, `from` having count(*) > 1;

Kiel, 2014-06-15


The withdraw of the claimant based on too few resources is accepted. Remaining parts of the case are dismissed.

As those parts are not handled finally, it is possible to file a dispute for them again. The Arbitrator sees some room for a case about those topics, if not handled by a policy or the like. However such a dispute should include a clear proposal about how the clean-up should look like and either should include necessary queries or provide some other indication that they would be available.

The Arbitrator leaves a warning and following advise for the claimant because of requesting continuation of the case multiple times, without being able to provide requested input. As claimant was already informed that such a behaviour may lead to remedies against the claimant as explained in ruling of a20140518.1 [2]. No action is taken in this case, because:

a) While not successful, the claimant (board) showed intention and will to provide a valid and sensible relief. This is especially the case as board picked up the case on claimant side, after they became aware of the case, the issue and the need to add further details.

b) By requesting withdraw claimant also aimed to resolve the situation after realising that board is currently not able to provide such a relief.

c) Also the former Arbitrator already accepted the case and allowed it to continue like this, after first relief was handled and by this allowed the current situation.

The following advise is given:

1. It would be sensible to prepared such disputes within assurance area, probably under guidance of the Assurance Officer, where such topics fit much better than with support.

2. Board is advised to name an Assurance Officer, so that an according dispute or other solution for such issues could be prepared with due focus, probably with the help of others volunteers.

3. Community is advised to help board to find candidates for such a role or other volunteers for looking into such topics.

Eva Stöwe - 2016-11-25


Similiar Cases


Adhoc SQL query: Dispute to get some statisical data (U18)


Ad hoc SQL query requested


Ad hoc SQL query requested


SQL: mail addresses of former assurers without the CATS passed


Event officer request recurrent notification to assurers near the location of the following ATEs


User requests a list of people who have more than 150 points


request list of OA


U18 query


SQL query


Addtl. adhoc interactive sql-query


How many users using sample pwd


PII and problematical sys settings on 1057 of 1074 deleted accounts cases still remains in database