Before: Arbitrator name arbitrator (A), Respondent: L. I. (R), Claimant: CAcert (C1), Case: a20141027.1

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

History Log

Link to Arbitration case a20141027.1 (Private Part), Access for (CM) + (A) only

EOT Private Part

Original Dispute

Discovery

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 https://lists.cacert.org/wws/arc/cacert-board/2016-08/msg00009.html and https://lists.cacert.org/wws/arc/cacert-board/2016-08/msg00017.html 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 a20141027.1 - "Request for precedence ruling for accounts with obviously fake or non-personal names "

At the FrOSCon 2016 Session case a20141027.1 - "Request for precedence ruling for accounts with obviously fake or non-personal names " 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 subsequent review of this case at FrOSCon 2016 made Support decide to withdraw the case as claimant as shown by the relevant section of the FrOSCon 2016 report posted on the board and arbitration mailinglists on 2016-08-23:

4. https://wiki.cacert.org/Arbitrations/a20141027.1
-------------------------------------------------------------------
"Request for precedence ruling for accounts with obviously fake or
non-personal names"

 * summary of dispute:
"Support observe during support case handling that" names in an accout
are "obvious fake names, which is a CCA violation." [Data for one
specific case]
"Support should have the rights to act as follows:"
- to ask the users about correct names
- to "rule[s] that if the names [are incorrect] to change them [...]
within a period of 4 weeks."
- if there is no answer or change lock account
- if assured account dispute against assurer
- "if user asks for unlocking account he needs to pay a handling
surcharge of at least 15 EUR."
- wiki entry with prim email, ticket number, keyword why acc locked
visible for all support and arbitration
- maybe delete account after retention time of 3 month after last
expiration of certificates in account, with keeping email address, so
that user cannot create new account with that address, as long as he
does not pay 15 EUR
"This dispute is indented to strength the CCA by enforcing to obey the
CAcert rules as it cannot be that CAcert has no measures to react, if
the user enters fake data."

 * support:
a) why does one see those accounts?
b) how to know that it is fake data?
c) if at all support should address those if they use their correct data
with a nice mail and a reference to CCA, with no further consequences
based on b) - there is no allowance to look up the account later again
d) if there are assurances it has to be assumed that those assurances
are valid, if there is no reason to doubt this by someone who has seen
the data of that person (another assurer) [if there were assurances can
be seen as supporter without looking up the assurer]
=> withdraw
 * board: ok

FrOSCon 2016 session - review of case a20141027.1 - "Request for precedence ruling for accounts with obviously fake or non-personal names " - comments received

The review of this case as reported on the board and arbitration mailinglists led to minor comments posted on the board and arbitration mailinglists on 2016-08-24 (only relevant part included here for brevity). None of the comments came from the original claimant:

[...]

> * support:
> a) why does one see those accounts?

If support gets aware of such accounts based on support tickets, maybe.
Just a wild guess ...

> b) how to know that it is fake data?

Maybe "Admin SomeCorp" or alike ... CCA violation by failing to fill in
correct information.

> c) if at all support should address those if they use their correct data
> with a nice mail and a reference to CCA, with no further consequences
> based on b) - there is no allowance to look up the account later again
> d) if there are assurances it has to be assumed that those assurances
> are valid, if there is no reason to doubt this by someone who has seen
> the data of that person (another assurer) [if there were assurances can
> be seen as supporter without looking up the assurer]
> => withdraw
> * board: ok

As a community member of CAcert I see this decision as HIGHLY
problematic as I cannot trust the information present in accounts.

[...]

In the reply the member is encouraged to take matters in his own hands by either presenting his arguments to board or Support or file a dispute, if he truly believes this would be a sensible step towards resolving his problem:

[...]

> As a community member of CAcert I see this decision as HIGHLY
> problematic as I cannot trust the information present in accounts.

I'll not comment here, as those were the arguments of claiming party.

But I believe that [...] already commented on this a little bit from the
point of view of board, as well. Or as a community member. (Not sure
about which role he was using in that comment.) As did [...].

If you have issues with that position - and support accepts some
superior decision of board in this context - you probably should present
your arguments somehow more prominent to board (or support). Or file the
same dispute on your own, if you believe this to be a sensible step as a
community member.

[...]

Ruling

None - claimant C1 withdrew case on 2016-08-20.

Similiar Cases

TBD


Arbitrations/a20141027.1 (last edited 2016-10-22 12:53:04 by PietStarreveld)