* Case Number: a20150116.1 * Status: init * Claimant: EvaStöwe * Respondent: MartinGummi, UlrichSchroeter * initial Case Manager: UlrichSchroeter, later EvaStöwe disclosed dispute based on DRO decision [[https://community.cacert.org/board/motions.php?motion=m20161119.4|m20161119.4]] * Case Manager: name case manager * Arbitrator: name arbitrator * Date of arbitration start: 201Y-MM-DD * Date of ruling: 201Y-MM-DD * Case closed: 201Y-MM-DD * Complaint: appeal against [[Arbitrations/a20150114.1|a20150114.1]] - update of first Arbitration case entered by me at 2015-01-14 [[Arbitrations/a20150114.3|a20150114.3]] * Relief: TBD Before: Arbitrator name arbitrator (A), Respondent: MartinGummi (R1) UlrichSchroeter (R2), Claimant: EvaStöwe (C), Case: a20150116.1 <> == History Log == . 2015-01-16 (issue.c.o): case [[Ticket:343489|s20150116.51]] . 2015-09-08 (iCM): added to wiki, request for CM / A, sent notifications to (C), (R1), (R2), Marcus . 2015-09-09 (C): comment to notification == Private Part == * '''Link to Arbitration case [[Arbitrations/priv/a20150116.1|a20150116.1 (Private Part)]]''' ## ==> INCLUDE SECTION BOT <> ## <== INCLUDE SECTION EOT ==== EOT Private Part ==== == Original Dispute == {{{ Dear all, regrettably I see a need to attach an appeal against a20150114.1 (the case is currently wrongly listed under a20140114.1 in the pending cases overview). This should be a conditional appeal. The condition is that: a) The ruling allows something in the area about what the claimant requested with the dispute and b) My doubts regarding the correctness of the installation of the Arbitrator and Case Manager are not answered sufficiently. My doubts could either be sufficiently answered by the Arbitrator and Case Manager of said a20150114.1 or if there is a ruling in the case I entredd at 2015-01-14. This appeal should be an update to that case. To clarify: I do not want to interfere with the ruling of a20150114.1 and I do not take a position that there may not be a positive ruling in that case. I am not the Arbitrator and thus my not decide anything in this regard. My doubts are in the area if the Arbitrator assigned himself for said case without a CoI. If he would have an CoI he would not be allowed to handle that case according to the DRP. In this case he also would not have the authority to rule in such a case. So any ruling done by him in such a case would not be able to authorise critical to give away data from the DB which is requested in the dispute of a20150114.1. My appeal is that any such ruling should not be executed until the doubts about the correctness of the case are answered. As soon as this is the case this appeal gets invalid. I currently do not question any possible result of the ruling in a20150114.1 only the correct installation of the Arbitrator of that case. As this is independent of the ruling that is later given, I can place this appeal without the knowledge what the ruling will be like. The appeal is only made to protect our members and their data so that it is not accessed without a correct authorisation. This and only this is the reason for this appeal. Again: I do not want to have a ruling for a20150114.1 of any special kind - I can see reasons to allow the according request and others against it and do not take position one way or the other. -- mit freundlichen Grüßen / best regards Eva Stöwe }}} ## You may remove unneeded sections at your discretion... == Discovery == == Elaboration == == Ruling == == Execution == == Similiar Cases == || [[Arbitrations/a20150114.1|a20150114.1]] || [[Arbitrations/a20150114.1|query to get data for Web of trust Graph]] || || [[Arbitrations/a20150114.3|a20150114.3]] || [[Arbitrations/a20150114.3|Dispute against the Arbitrator and CM of a20150114.1]] || ---- . CategoryArbitration . CategoryArbCaseAppeal