- Case Number: a20140518.1
- Status: closed
former Claimant 1: (former Claimant) CAcert Inc. (represented by board who itself is represented by the secretary Etienne R.) (C -> C1)
- Claimant 2: Reinhard M
- Respondent: Dominik G
- former Respondent: CAcert
initial Case Manager: EvaStöwe
Case Manager: BernhardFröhlich
- Date of arbitration start: 2014-05-20
- Date of ruling: 2015-09-22
- Case closed: 2016-05-02
- Complaint: Maybe exclusion of a member
- requested Relief:
- Expel R from Cacert Incorporation
- Cut the trust points of R to a maximum of 50 points and keep this status for a minimum of 5 years.
- Dispute was dismissed by the ruling
Before: Arbitrator EvaStöwe (A), Respondent: Dominik G (R), Claimant: Reinhard M (C2), Case: a20140518.1
- former Claimant CAcert Inc. as C, later C1
Other persons: ME = member
- 2014-05-18 (issue.c.o): case [s20140518.42]
- 2014-05-19 (iCM): added to wiki, request for CM / A
- 2014-05-19 (iCM): send notification about new case to board and Etienne R.
2014-05-20 (A): I'll take care of this case as Arbitrator, BernhardFröhlich will be the Case Manager
- 2014-05-20 (A): init mail to board, secretary
- 2014-05-21 (A): mail to C that A and CM tend to dismiss this case with current dispute as if answered the ruling could be misused for an unfair action by board, so that the involved members would not be heared before arbitration and when heard before board the sentence would be nearly fixed; suggestion to change dispute so that it coveres the whole case
- 2014-05-21 (vice president/DRO): asks for case number of referenced case
- 2014-05-21 (A): resent last mail with correct cert
- 2014-05-21 (A): responds with case number
- 2014-05-21 (vice president/DRO): sees no relevance of referenced case
- 2014-05-21 (A): explains relevance
- 2014-06-01 board-motion to hand over case
- 2014-06-09 (A): reminder to board
- 2014-06-15 (C): appologises for delay, has informed a lot of people, referes to board decision without further details
- 2014-06-16 (A): asks for at least the original mail, as the dispute cannot be changed without it
- 2014-06-22 (A): sends board another reminder
- 2014-06-22 board-discussion about how to proceed
- 2014-06-23 (C): sends a lot of mails, including original mail but without the relevant attachment to said mail
- 2014-06-23 (C): sends a resumee
- 2014-06-23 (A): asks for the missing attachment of one of the send mails wich should include the "dispute", also asks (not for the first time) for a signature or a CARS for the change of the dispute
- 2014-06-23 (C): sends missing attachment
- 2014-06-24 (C): asks about meaning of CARS and problem with signature
- 2014-06-24 (A): reference about CARS
2014-06-26 (A): adds C2 and R to case, C -> C1
- 2014-06-27 (A): init mail to C2 and R
- 2014-07-01 (A): asks C1, C2, R for statements, asks C1 if they want to stay a party
- 2014-07-06 (C2): had mail-issues asks A to re-send important mails
- 2014-07-06 (A): resend last two mails to C2
- 2014-07-06 (A): asks internal Auditor for advice how to proceed if a response is needed from board until a said date and board is not responding (urgency based on incoming AGM and possible replacement of board-members)
- 2014-07-07 (secretary for C1): is sorry about delay, does not know the answer because a board-meeting did not take place to the questions will answer, soon
- 2014-07-07 (A): answers secretary, does not see the relevance of the canceled board-meeting in this case
- 2014-07-08 (board member for C1): the action of R is suitable to damage the reputation of CAcert Community and Inc., board should stay claimant
- 2014-07-08 (A): asks board for more details for the general statment that the action of R is suitable to damage the reputation of CAcert Community and Inc.
- 2014-07-08 (A): again asks C1 about the relevance of people who were informed about the case by C1
- 2014-07-08 (C1): the people were informed because they were former teamleads of R or held similar roles
- 2014-07-10 (A): thanks C1 for clarification about the relevance of the people
- 2014-07-10 (secretary for C1): recapitulates why the dispute was filed by C2, unsure if the actions of R were able to hurt CAcert Inc
- 2014-07-12 (internal Auditor): presumes that there was no answer from board, Arbitration is the only unit equipped with tools to enforce, would recommend to use them; e.g. order to pay a penalty for every week of non-answering applying to all board members
- 2014-07-12 (A): thanks internal Auditor for his answer
- 2014-07-12 (A): infroms C1 about the answer of the internal Auditor and asks again for a clear answer as the last responses were contradicing each other
- 2014-07-13 (A): asks secretary if C2 and R are members of CAcert Inc.
- 2014-07-14 (board member): CAcert Inc. preferes not to be claimant in this case anymore
- 2014-07-15 (treasurer): both are members of CAcert Inc., R may cease to be a member if he does not pay soon
- 2014-07-15 (A): asks board to inform A about any change of the membership status of R and C2
- 2014-07-16 (A): informs CM and internal Auditor of possible tries of board members to get A to formulate their position in this case in a private channel during the board meeting at 2014-07-14 (anonymised)
- 2014-07-15 (A): sends CM the de-anonymised version
- 2014-07-20 (A): releases C1 as claimant, requests again a statement from C2, R
- 2014-08-09 (A): asks treasuerer about an update on the membership status of R
- 2014-09-14 (A): asks treasuerer again about an update on the membership status of R
- 2014-09-24 (treasurer): R ceased to be a member of CAcert Inc.
- 2014-09-26 (A): asks support for primary email addresses of C2 and R, as they were not responding, to be sure to reach them with the next mail
- 2014-09-26 (support): provides primary email addresses of C2 and R
- 2014-10-03 (A): informs C2 and R, about the intention to dismiss the case if nobody provides a statement with relevance, as the dispute has lost its goal because of R being no longer a member of CAcert Inc.
- 2014-10-03 (R): informs A about not receiving any previous mails for this case
- 2014-10-03 (R): asks if the A/CM/C2 do not realise that the history of this case is proof for CAcert being dead
- 2014-10-03 (R): asks CM/A to be de-anonymised in the case file
- 2014-10-07 (A): Intermediate Ruling: refuses to de-anonymise R
- 2014-10-08 (A): forwards init mail and request for statements of C2 and R and first remindert to R, excusing the delay by being busy with a lot of things as there is currently a lot under way within CAcert at different fronts that also needs some attention and time
- 2014-10-08 (A): informs parties about the forwarding
- 2014-10-08 (A): answer to R: A does not understand how a huge amount of mails can be proof for no activity; finds it extraordinary to measure the activity of an organisation on the history log of a single case; does not see the relevance of this point for the case; asks to fokus on relevant points
- 2014-10-15 (CM): informs A about a call with C2 on this case; C2 wants to respond
- 2014-10-15 (A): thanks CM; informs CM about talk with the member who was addressed with the "2. mail", he does not want this case to be continued and does not want to be part of the case
- 2014-10-16 (C2): gives a statement (not answering the questions of A), adds relief
- 2014-10-17 (A): answers C2, that there is no basis for any of the reliefs, giving a reasoning; asks C2 to provide arguments why the mails are worse than others, to allow as drastic actions as requested with the relief
- 2014-10-19 (R): doubts relevance of arguments given by C2, congratulates C2 that he has learnt about CARS
- 2014-10-19 (A): corrects R about C2 not knowing about CARS, it was a board member
- 2014-10-19 (R): is sorry about the mistake, but think that this is worse for CAcert
- 2014-10-21 (C2): does not see a need for more explanation; does not allow A to define who should be C2 in this case; complaints that parts of the relief should not be possible because time has passed by board not getting active, wants it to executed, anyway; demands a questioning of R for the reasons for the mails, demands that a lot of questions are answered by A in the case, does not agree that a ruling should be related to the damage that may have been caused by an action; threatens with an appeal
- 2014-10-21 (A): again asks for arguments why the mails in question were worse than other mails send by other people; does not see a need to question R, because that question should be answered first and the motiv for the mails seems also to be clear; refuses to answer that CAcert has to do some things, that should be the decision of board; informs C2 that to define who is claimant and respondent in a case is one of the few tasks of the Arbitrator that is clearly stated in the DRP 2.2, if this is not accepted by C2, that could be interpreted as a violation of DRP and CCA; gives some more explanations to points in the DRP (including that the parties have to provide reasonings); ruling will not includ an exclusion of R as R is no member, the other relief is also not possible to do (this was verified with software team) and would violate AP.
- 2014-10-23 (C2): declares to give last statment; a lot of disagreement; no substancial answer to the request to give an arguemtn for why the mails are more severe than others; only the opinion of the parties should count in this case, the opinion of the addressed person has no relevance as he is not a party; does not accept reference that exclusion is not possible anymore because time has passed; "in dubio pro reo" cannot be applied, because it is clear that he send the mails; also for exclusion with 12.1 no damage has to be there, only "persistently and willfullly acted in a manner prejudicial to the interests of the assiciation"; has nothing to add to the known facts
- 2014-10-23 (A): tries to address C2 with a private mail in German - because of a misuse of the webclient a preview to the mail is accidently sent to R, CM also; explains that mail is private and should not be part of the case (which it now has to be because later course of the case), explains that "in dubio pro reo" is not applicable but the term most people are familiar with, but it is about fairness which the DRP also requests; explains that there was no need to add the excourse if the addressat of the mails should be a claimant as this was dropped, early; the two mails were not nice, but there were worse or comparable mails, also be the addressat and those would have to be treated likewise extreme if there would be a ruling in this direction; neither the affected person nor Inc. seem to want any action for those mails; a lot of people violate our polices now and again, just the fact that there was a violation as such does not verify drastic actions against them, the seriosity of the violation has to be considered; explains the effect of precedents rulings in common law as this one
- 2014-10-23 (A): sends correct version of mail to C2
- 2014-10-24 (R): trivial comment to last mail that he and others are enjoing the absurdity of this case
- 2014-10-24 (C2): did not get mail that R answered
- 2014-10-24 (R): explains issue with wrong mail
- 2014-10-24 (R): mentions the mail the addressat of the 2nd mal in question had sent that was the cause for the mail in question from R and also contains bad language
- 2014-10-24 (C2) does not see any issue with mail from other member, declares that such mails are normal in the IT business and nothing special and declares it as time-barred; also focusses on the first mail that he declares to be damaging for CAcert Inc and its community, also questions the titles R had used in that mail; also states if other mails were not treated with severe actions, that does not mean that this mails should not be treated severe, as there is no equality in injustice
- 2014-10-24 private mail from (C2) to (A): there should be no private mails in Arbitration cases; maybe current board has other ideas than old board
- 2014-10-24 (R) answers (C2): regards Cs mail as agreement that comparable language to that used in his second mail has to be considered to be normal; explains the validity of the titles, agrees to the effects of precedents rulings and that German law is not applicable; does not agree that there was evidence that he acted wilfully ot daage CAcert; also states that he did not act as Inc. member it was not part of the signature where he had listed most of his other roles in the context of CAcert; asks C2 to also include the member who was the addressat of his second mail to the list of respondents of the dispute as that mail was of comparable nature
- 2014-10-24 (C2): rejects accusation from R; does not agree that the language of the second mail was normal language, also states that for each case the addressat decides if a mail is acceptable or not, prior decisions are irrelevant; asks R what keeps him with CAcert
- 2014-10-24 (R): what keeps him with CAcert is not relevant for C2
- 2014-10-24 (A): answers privately to C2s private mail - has consulted the president and he does not see a relevance of this case for CAcert Inc. since R is no member, any more
- 2014-10-24 (A): apologise for mistake with the private mail; asks everybody to treat it privately (only for handling in this case), as it was intended as a private mail; explains that an Arbitrator may chose the communication that she finds most appropriate (references to DRP, CCA); addresses the argument of time-barred for the other bad-language mails: the mentioned mails were send in the same context (or within a short period of time); explains again the relevance or prececent decisions in common law; informs parties that she will consider the arguments of the parties to find a ruling
- 2014-10-24 (R): comments documentation of the mail server, with no relevance for this case
- 2014-10-27 (C2): writes a mail with subject "Dispute" addressed to board that asks to have A removed as Arbitrator or Arbitrator of this case, this case is moved to Arbitration by Support
- 2015-01-25 (A): informs C2 about discussion between A and CM regarding this case; asks if he was not answering the questions of A because he refuses to do so or because he is not able to do so; also informs C2 about status of his last mail (nobody seems to know what to do about it, A has informed board about its existende); informs C2 that an Arbitrator cannot be replaced, informs C2 about correct appeal process and its prerequisites, and consequences
- 2015-06-27 (A of a20150420.1) has reviewed this case with the conclusion "This arbitrator holds that none of the reviewed material has given any indication of an abuse of power or authority nor any violations of policy by the respondent Eva Stöwe. In fact her work as an arbitrator has been exemplary. She has not acted in any evident way contrary to the best interests of CAcert in either her role as arbitrator or policy officer."
- 2015-09-22 (A): gives ruling
- 2015-09-22 (A): informes the RA-audit team lead about precariousness of the C regarding arbitration and the CCA
- 2015-09-22 (R): thanks Arbitrator
- 2015-09-23 (A): informs board about ruling
- 2016-05-02 (A): closes case
Link to Arbitration case a20140518.1 (Private Part), Access for (CM) + (A) only
EOT Private Part
To whom it may concern As secretary of CAcert Inc., Denistone East, NSW 2112, New South Wales, I ask the arbitrator to look after this case: On the private board mailing list (email@example.com ), [member1] has asked the committee to exclude [member2] from the association in accordance with paragraph 12 of the statutes of CAcert Inc. ([mail details]). The reason for the exclusion are, according to [member1], [member2] negative comments on the public mailing lists (cacert and cacert-de) and elsewere on CAcert, including the statement that CAcert is dead and in response on a mail from [member3] that he may correct his "rotten memory". The committee would like to obtain information from the arbitration if this falls under "persistently and willfully acted in a manner prejudicial to the interests of the association" (statutes) and therefore constitutes a ground for exclusion or not. Since CAcert has not only the statutes, but also the internal arbitration, the committee has decided to refer the case to the arbitrator in order that he recommend to the committee an appropriate way forward. In fact, for the committee, it is not clear, if "CAcert" in the mentioned comments means CAcert-community or CAcert Inc. Following procedures would not be the same. Sincerly yours, Etienne R[...] Secretary of CAcert Inc. Original in german: [member1] hat auf der privaten Board Mailingliste (firstname.lastname@example.org) den Vorstand aufgefordert, [member2] nach Paragraph 12 der Satzung von CAcert Inc. aus dem Verein auszuschließen ([mail details]). Grund für den Ausschluss nach Ansicht von [member1] sind [member2] Äußerungen unter anderem auf öffentlichen Mailinglisten (cacert und cacert-de) die unter anderem die Aussage beinhalten dass CAcert tot sei und in Antwort auf eine Mail von [member3] dass dieser doch sein "rotten memory"korrigieren möge. Der Vorstand möchte durch das Schiedsgericht abklären lassen, ob dies unter "persistently and willfully acted in a manner prejudicial to the interests of the association" (Statuten) fällt und deshalb einen Ausschlussgrund darstellt, oder nicht. Da CAcert ausser den Statuten auch das interne Schiedsgericht kennt, hat der Vorstand beschlossen, den Fall dem Schiedsgericht vorzulegen, um dem Vorstand ein angemessenes weiteres Vorgehen zu empfehlen, insbesondere, da nicht eindeutig klar ist, ob die CAcert-Gemeinschaft oder CAcert Inc. gemeint ist, was unter Umständen unterschiedliche Vorgehen nach sich ziehen könnte.
- new dispute (original referenced mail from C2)
complaint about DOMINIK G[...], member of Cacert Inc. Violating the rules of Cacert Association Reasons: In a blog post on several mailinglists and additional to a few individualists he resigned from all positions of Cacert and told the public „en passant“ that Cacert is dead. (See attachment 1) In a follow-up post DOMINIK offended a member of our association in a not acceptable way writing „to correct your wrotten memory“. (see attachment 2) my Intention: From my point of view the above noted facts accord to §12.1 (b) has persistently and willfully acted in a manner prejudicial to the interests of the association. No individual member of the association may ever claim the death of our association CAcert. Such a statement verifies that the speaker resigns all agreements ever made between the inidvidual and CAcert, especially CCA which includes by reference the „Principles of the CAcert Community“ and herein • We keep our disputes in-house. We strive to train our users, and where things go wrong, we address before a forum of peers. FAIR means: File a dispute, Arbitration is our forum, Independent, Resolution. • You, and each user, are our ambassadors, and should act accordingly. Present us fairly. Stress that we are open to new users. It is on the board to act in accordance with DRP.
Parts in  anonymised
Administrative notes of changes of disputes and claimnats and dates
The original dispute was considered to be unfair by A and CM as it would include the affected members from this case and they would have little impact on the result of the case handled by board, later.
C (board) was addressed with the notice that the case probably would have to be rejected based on this, if the dispute would not be adjusted.
C (board) decided, that they want to have the case completely handled by arbitration and handed over the original request as a new dispute.
Based on this at 2014-06-26:
- R is added as respondent
- C2 is added as claimant
C -> C1
- former R (CAcert) released
Further relevant dates from the case history:
- 2014-07-14: board decided that they did not want to remain claimant in this case anymore.
- 2014-07-20: A releases C1 as claimant
- 2014-09-24: The treasurer informs A that R is no longer a member of CAcert Inc. So R cannot be removed from CAcert Inc. based on the dispute.
- 2014-10-03: A informs C2 aand R about the intention to dismiss the case if there are no more relevant points provided by the parties
- 2014-10-03: R asks to be de-anonymised
- 2014-10-07: intermediate ruling refuses de-anonymisation of R
- 2014-10-16: statement of C2 to continue the case, not answering the questions of A but adding further actions for a possible relief
the mails in question
- This case is about 2 mails, written by R and send over a public mailinglist of CAcert:
- The first one contains the statement "CAcert is dead", which was repeated by R, later before the Arbitrator in this case.
- The second one contains a personal insult against another member (ME).
- Around the time the mails were send, other members also wrote mails with comparable insults on the same or comparable mailing lists. The second mail from R was an answer to such a mail send by ME that contained a discrediting notion about a body part of R.
- The phraes of the first mail ("CAcert is dead") was part of an explanation for the resignation of R from all his posts within CAcert but being an assurer.
- ME wants to have this case closed as soon as possible without an action against R.
- CAcert Inc., represented by board was the original claimant of this case and decided to withdraw from the dispute. The president of CAcert Inc. stated at a personal meeting (without consulting the remaining board), that board has no interest in this case since R is no member of CAcert Inc., anymore.
actions C2 asked to be ruled against R
The actions C2 asked during the course of this case are:
- remove R as a member from CAcert Inc.
- reduce the assurance points of R to 50 for 5 years
- finding, that a statement like "CAcert is dead" may not be accepted by CAcert Inc. and needs actions
- finding that a CAcert Inc. member has to be excluded from CAcert Inc. for such statements
It was hinted (but never asked for) by C2 that he also wants to:
- a permanent (or 5 years?) removal of Rs assurer flag
All but the first one were added AFTER C2 was informed that the case would probably be dismissed, if he did not answer with an explanation of the dispute, which never was given.
At the same time C2 was informed that the first one was not possible any more, because R was removed from CAcert Inc. automatically at the change of the business year of CAcert Inc. Nonetheless C2 repeated that request.
evaluation of first mail
CAcert has to live with critic. If CAcert cannot deal with internal or external critic, the phrase "CAcert is dead" is probably correct. Our principles state that we do not decieve. So if a member comes to the conculsion that CAcert is dead, it has to be possible to state this. A member also has to state things about CAcert that are not "nice". But there should be reasons for doing so and it should be based on facts, if this should be considered as a valid statement.
As the memberbase of CAcert is growing (2014 was the year with the most new members ever) and CAcert is continuing to issue certificates and other services (like Arbitration) the Arbitrator does not agree that CAcert is dead even one year later. CAcert was not "dead" before the first mail of R, but it also seems to be quite unaffectd by it and continues to be "alive" regardless of the mail.R: thanks Arbitrator
But the Arbitrator agrees that there is room for improvement within CAcert. But she also states, that there are people putting a lot of effort to improve them, even if the presentation of those activities also could be improved.
The mail was send (and percieved) in a context where Debian just had decided to remove the CAcert certificate together with some others. This decission maybe felt like a kind of killing blow for some people. History shows that this was not the case. So probably the mail of R has to be seen in such a context and relativated accordingly.
In any case CAcert has to accept that members simply state their view about CAcert. The same is true for CAcert Inc. There is freedom of opinion.
evaluation of second mail
The second mail contained an insult against another member (ME). It was an answer to a comparable insult by ME against R.
The claimant C2 explained that the insult written by ME is just a normal mail which has to be expected in a context where computer affin people are working.
The Arbitrator cannot see any relevant difference between the nature of both insults, neither does the CM. The claimant C2 stated that there is a big differe between both but refuses to explain this.
The victim of the insult does not want to have this procecuted.
Nobody should write insulting mails or be encouraged to write them. And everybody within CAcert should aim to keep CAcert free of them.
But sometimes people get angry and tend to write mails that cannot be considered to be politically correct which can also contain insults (or parts that are felt to be insulting by the recipient). While this is not good, it is natural in an environment where people spend a lot of time and effort to create something great.
Such mails should not be encouraged, and maybe could lead to moderational activities by the list administrators. Especially if they violate mailing list rules.
But the claim that they are violating our principles and by this the CCA and should lead to extreme and harsh actions like the claimant C2 requests, is going too far. At least if they are of a nature of other mails that are considered to be acceptable and natural even by the claimant.
Even if there could be a slight violation of the principles and by this the CCA (the Arbitrator refuses to decide on this, as it is not relevant at the end), it would be so minor compared to other violations against the CCA which do not lead to any action, that any action against the respondent based on only one such insult in one mail would go too far. At least if the insulted member has no interest to get this prosecuted.
Warning: This does explicitly not say that any insult in any context within CAcert has to be considered to be acceptable. Especially not if they are accumulating. The claimant C2 is right insofar that in theory insults can lead to actions against a member. But this insult from R is not such a case.
About value of volunteer time and frivolous cases
Volunteer time is a valuable resource for CAcert. Arbitration is one way how it can be spend. For years there are more cases to attend than CAcert has volunteer time within the Arbitration team. So if a case is consuming Arbitration time, others will have to wait longer.
current status of free of charge disputes
Even as volunteer time is a valuable and scarce resource, it is currently "given" for free.
Even as DRP 1.2 introduces the idea that this may be different and that there may be a fee attached to a case.
This is done to enable every member to file a dispute and by this get issues, questions or problems solved via Arbitration. This is a quite important and valuable concept. To enable all members to do this, is one of the core ideas of the Arbitration system.
Any fee could change this, because people may fear the costs of a case (or some people even may not be able to pay the costs). This is why currently no fee is applied.
consequences of unnecessary work in cases based on statements of one party that this is necessary / frivolous cases
If waiting time is long for a case being handled by Arbitration, while another case is consuming Arbitration time in an unnecessary manner, this may provide the feeling, that CAcert does not care about that first issue. Beside of other reasons this is one reason why the Arbitration team should aim for cases being able to be handled and closed, soon. Which regrettably we do not always manage for a lot of reasons (the backside of the fact that Arbitration is done by volunteers in their free time).
Some cases take long or need a lot of attention and time from an Arbitrator because of their nature and this is fine.
But if a case is unnecessarily picked up or continued, because one party implies that there may be more to the case than the Arbitrator can see, while refusing to provide that information so that the Arbitrator either has to do unnecessary work to get that information or will have to keep the case open unnecessarily, waiting for that input and at the and has to rule without that information, this is not a sensible way to use Arbitration time. It is also showing disrespect for the involved team and any other claimant and respondent of any other case by the party who is asking for the case to be continued.
Such a behaviour is harmful for
- CAcert and Arbitration because it is using up valuable volunteer time for the questionable benefits of one party (which is especially worse if that party later stops to care for the issue and/or does not answer the Arbitrator)
- any other involved party, because they have to wait unnecessary long to get any possible question answered
- any parties of other cases who have to wait longer
- CAcert and Arbitration, because it lengthens the duration of how long cases take and by this makes Arbitration less effective and less attractive.
It also leads to frustration on the side of the volunteering Arbitrator who is doing unnecessary work without payment because of prior disputes/statements of one party. This frustration is also harmful for the Arbitration team and by this CAcert in general.
answer of the policies to those cases
Our policies realise this. Both the DRP and the CCA include the obligation of the parties (and every other member or entity under CCA or DRP) to help Arbitration with any reasonable request and to answer Arbitration. Also the Arbitrator of a case my seek any help. [see CCA 2.3 4., DRP 2.2, 2.6] Also other policies like Security Policy (SP) and Assurance Policy (AP) emphasise the requirement to answer and assist Arbitration.
A party who is responsible for such a harmful behaviour, is violating our core polices and by this can be made liable with a monetary fee.
Any claimant who loses interest in a case can be bothered to declare that they want to withdraw it.
conceptual description of this issue
If a case is performed (or continued) purely for the benefit or pleasure of one party, there is no reason why this should be done for free with the community/CAcert/volunteers bearing the costs.
An Arbitrator can make that party liable to pay a fee to CAcert. This would not be a fee (even not a nominary) but would be a result of the liability of the CCA and our policies for harming CAcert as described.
Two elements have to be present for a case being as harmful as described. 1. The case is handled or continued because of a statement of the party 2. The party is not responding the Arbitrator or refusing to provide any other reasonable assistance, requested by the Arbitrator
(Note: in general "party" means a party of that case, but the same could be true for another member who is assisting in that case, in some situations.)
Some examples when this may be the case:
1.a. A case where the claimant does not answer the Arbitrator at all. (Even if the Arbitrator has a reason to follow the case regardless of the missing input of the claimant.)
1.b. A case where the initial Case Manager has informed the claimant that no point for the handling of the case could be seen and afterwards has asked the claimant if the case could be closed but the claimant insists that the case has to being done, nonetheless.
1.c. The same situation where the Arbitrator has informed the parties about the nature of the probable ruling for that case based on the known facts and one party insits that the case should be continued as the result is considered to be wrong, maybe based on wrong or missing information.
2.a. That party later does not answer the Arbitrator at all.
2.b. That party later refuses a request of the Arbitrator.
2.c. That party cannot provide any additional input of the claimed relevance.
Cases which are required by the SP or other policies always are necessary. However as there is a requirement to have those cases for a good reason, there is an even higher requirement to answer Arbitration to get the issue solved. Even such required cases may come to a state that matches the above description, if the core question is solved.
reference to current case
In this case
- the Arbitrator has declared that the case would be dismissed if no further information would be provided by the parties
- the claimant C2 insisted that the case may not be dismissed and even adjusted/intensified the requested relief
- he never provided further information regarding his claim that the mails were unacceptable, he only provided, but insisted that case may not be dismissed
- he stopped answering Arbitration
That the C2 was not the one who handed this caes to Arbitration has to be considered. But at the point latest where he added relieves on his own - especially such that are independent from CAcert Inc. internals - this becomes irrelevant.
The name of the respondent should not be de-anonymised in the public part of the case file.
There are three reasons, all are general considerations.
- The first (and least important) reason is to protect the respondent and any other person who would request something like this. At the moment nobody knows about the further curse of the case and the respondent may change his mind later based on how the case evolves. Even if it will be closed directly there could be follow-up cases or appeals and the same would apply there. If the name is de-anonymised once it cannot be changed back. We can manipulate the Wiki-history, but we cannot change who reads it until then.
- The second reason is to protect others in a likewise situation. Nobody should be forced to consider if he or she wants to be anonymised or not. If people start to be de-anonymised this may rise questions if others may have to hide something when they do not ask for the same.
- The third and most important reason is, that de-anonymisation of one party may lead to a de-anonymisation of the other party or other involved persons. It is not relevant if this would be the case, here. I even may not decide this based on the fact if this would be relevant in this case - as just doing so could in itself be a de-anonymisation of the other party. If the request would be refused because it would de-anonymise others it is clear where to look for those others.
So at least as long as no good reasons for the request is given why this should be different in this special case, which also counters the above reasons, I will not allow a de-anonymisation.
-- Hamburg, 2014-10-07
The dispute is dismissed.
No arguments were provided by the claimants why the mails have to be considered to be harmful for CAcert or CAcert Inc, or at least more harmful than other mails that the claimant Reinhard argued to be fully acceptable.
The first mail ("CAcert is dead") is unkind but has to be accepted.
The Arbitrator considers the second mail to be ugly and would be glad if there never would be such mails in the context of CAcert. But seen in the context of the original mail-exchange and especially as long as the insulted person does not want actions against it or its author, it cannot singularly be found to be so harmful to CAcert that it has to be answered with especially harsh actions against the author.
This ruling does not state that any insult in any context of CAcert or CAcert Inc. is acceptable. Especially not if they are accumulating. The claimant is right insofar that insults can lead to actions against a member.
Dominik should be warned about this. It would be good if he would try to show more respect for other persons and their volunteer work in the future, than he has shown in that mail. As should be everybody.
Reinhard should be warned that:
- It is a direct CCA and DRP violation to not answer the Arbitrator in an arbitration case, or to even refuse to provide the requested information, if asked a reasonable request by the Arbitrator.
- It is the responsibility of the claimant to base a dispute on facts or arguments, especially if the claim is labelled "obvious", at least if asked to do so by the Arbitrator. To file a dispute or to ask it to be continued without being ready to provide according evidence is an abuse of Arbitration.
Reinhard has violated both points during the course of this case.
Such a behaviour is harmful to CAcert and its members. It also shows disrespect against the forum of Arbitration, the team handling the case and all other members of CAcert involved in Arbitration. It can lead to a fee awarded against that party, or other actions including a termination of membership with that party.
As Reinhard did not originally intend to have this dispute handled by Arbitration (and the original claim correctly was filed with CAcert Inc. board) the Arbitrator abstains to order something like this in the current case. Even as by requesting further community related relieves Reinhard has chosen the course of Arbitration, himself.
For further details refer to the discovery of this case.
Both parties should be reminded that they have accepted a liability of up to 1000 Euro for violating the CCA or our policies.
While warnings are given, no actions should be taken against any party in this case.
However, the team lead of the RA-audit team should be informed about the continued precariousness the claimant has shown about the dispute and appeal process within this case and related events.
-- Cologne, 2015-09-22
- 2014-10-07 (A): Intermediate Ruling: refuses to de-anonymise R
- 2015-09-22 (A): gives ruling
- 2015-09-22 (A): informs the RA-audit team lead about precariousness of the C regarding arbitration and the CCA
- 2015-09-22 (A): informs the Arbitrator of a20150916.1 about ruling, as it may be of relevance in his case
- 2015-09-22 (R): thanks Arbitrator
- 2015-09-23 (A): informs board about ruling
- 2016-05-02 (A): closes case