Before: Arbitrator Eva Stöwe (A), Respondent: CAcert (R), Claimant: Oliver D (C), Case: a20140123.2

History Log

Original Dispute, Discovery (Private Part) (optional)

EOT Private Part

Intermediate Ruling

Since there is currently nobody who may legaly use the account of the late Andreas Otto, support should block his account until further notice from arbitration.

Hamburg, 2014-01-24


Support was contacted with the information that a user had died. The requester asked to get the automatic mails from the search an Assurer functionality removed in the name of a relative of the deceased.

While there was no contact to a relative and there was none other hard evidence, it has to be believed that the member realy has died. This is especially the case as it was not possible to contact the member via the known email addresses. Also the mails from the reporting person were quite convincing.

The question that is to decide by this case is how to react to this information. The important part is that the account is directly connected to a member and may not be shared. When this member has passed away there is no longer a person who can own the account. Both points have been clarified with the latest changes (p20140709 / p20141008) to the CAcert Community Agreement (CCA).

In this regard this case is related to a20131204.1. So even as this was not directly stated in the version accepted by the late member, the current version has to be used as a guideline.

As both cases are comparable (both former members were assurer and there is no direct connection to a relative), it is sensible to come to a comparable solution. The arguments are the same and can be found in the discovery part of a20131204.1.


We believe that the (late) member has passed away, as reported by the claimant.

According to the current version of the CAcert Community Agreement (CCA)[2] he has also ceased to be a member. At the time of the death the last version of the CCA was in effect. That version did not cover the question if or how the membership ends in the case of the death of a member. As this was clarified with the current version, it has to be seen as how Policy Group intends case like this to be handled, even as it was not stated back then.

Because of this the risks, liabilities and obligations (R/L/O) of being a member based on the CCA have been cancelled as well, at that date.

The account of the member should be closed by Support as soon as possible. Wherever a case number is needed, a20140123.2 should be used.

If someone challenges the given assurances directly (naming them), later but before they are older than 7 years, the assurances have to be revoked as the required CAP forms cannot be produced. As long as this is not the case, they should not be revoked and remain valid.

Even as this is unlikely it should be covered by the ruling: The according CAP forms should be destroyed, if possible. (This does not have to be covered in the execution part.)

-- 2014-10-16, In a train between Hamm and Hagen


Post Arbitration Activity

Similiar Cases


member passed away

Arbitrations/a20140123.2 (last edited 2015-09-21 08:02:37 by EvaStöwe)