- Case Number: a20140927.2
- Status: closed
- Claimant: Federico H
- Respondent: CAcert
initial Case Manager: MartinGummi
Case Manager: PietStarreveld
- Date of arbitration start: 2016-06-02
- Date of ruling: 2016-06-09
- Case closed: 2016-06-09
- Complaint: termination of assurer account Federico H
- Relief: Assurer account terminated
Before: Arbitrator EvaStöwe (A), Respondent: CAcert (R), Claimant: Frederico H (C), Case: a20140927.2
- 2014-09-27 (issue.c.o): case [s20140925.3028]
- 2014-10-02 (iCM): added to wiki, request for CM / A
- 2014-10-02 (iCM): notifies C about case
2016-06-02 (A): hands over CM role to PietStarreveld and accepts role as A
- 2016-06-09 (A): Init and ruling/execution mail
- 2016-06-09 (CM): Closed case
Link to Arbitration case a20140927.2 (Private Part), Access for (CM) + (A) only
EOT Private Part
Please terminate my CAcert membership. Thanks.
- About the dispute
- The claimant wants to terminate his membership with CAcert.
After the dispute was filed a ruling was given in a20141024.1 that defined a process so that cases like this can be handled by support.
- It is sensible to hand this case over to support who will be able to handle it faster than arbitration.
- Possibility to combine init-mail with ruling
- Even as the dates in his account indicate that he had accepted CCA and by this DRP once, it is likely that he does not agree with the current version of the CCA any more, as he requested to leave CAcert probably as a response to latest changes to CCA.
- As he wants to leave, it does not make sense to verify this point when there is nothing known that hinders him to leave in general
The claimant did assurances within last 7 years. The ruling in a20141231.1 clarified that this does not hinder someone to leave CAcert. (According provisions were added to the process that should be used based on the ruling of a20141024.1).
- As there is nothing known that would hinder a simple closure of the account, there is nothing that would prevent handling that case by support, for which no DRP acceptance is not necessary.
- Because of this no verification of CCA and DRP acceptance is necessary.
- If complications would arise a new arbitration case could be initiated.
In this case a ruling to dismiss the case back to support to handle it based on ruling of a20141024.1 is sensible. To spare the member the amount of mails send by CAcert, the ruling can be send together with the init mail.
The termination of the account of the claimant should be handled by support by using the complete process defined in 20141024.1 starting with step 1. Eva Stöwe, Hamburg 2016-06-09
- 2016-06-09 (A): Ruling (mail includes init-mail and execution request)