• Case Number: a20150726.1
• Status: init

• Claimant: EvaStöwe, Benny Baumann

• Respondent: CAcert

• initial Case Manager: UlrichSchroeter, later EvaStöwe disclosed dispute based on DRO decision m20161119.3 and 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: Dispute to remove post from support mailing list archive
• Relief: TBD

Before: Arbitrator name arbitrator (A), Respondent: CAcert (R), Claimant: EvaStöwe (C1), Benny Baumann (C2), Case: a20150726.1

History Log

• 2015-07-26 (issue.c.o): case s20150726.76

• 2015-07-27 (issue.c.o): case s20150727.18

• 2015-09-07 (iCM): added to wiki, request for CM / A, sent notifications (C1), (C2)

Private Part

• Link to Arbitration case a20150726.1 (Private Part)

EOT Private Part

Original Dispute

=== Dispute by (C1) Eva Stöwe ==

• > Dear Arbitration,
  > 
  > I hereby file a dispute to get the mail
  > from: Benny Baumann  [email address]
  > to: [public support mailing list address]
  > at: [date and time]
  > subject: Dispute: Harm to swift processing of security issue
  > 
  > removed from the archive of that list (if it was not previously removed
  > based on a20101025.1).
  > 
  > This request does not match the precedents ruling of a20101025.1. The
  > mail is meant as a dispute but such mails should be directed to
  > support@cacert.org. Disputes should be handled on the forum of
  > Arbitration and not on open mailing lists.
  > 
  > Independent from this concrete mail, I ask to add mails that are meant
  > to be disputes to a20101025.1 (or add a comparable precedents case).
  > 
  > 
  > 
  > If a claimant does not care about the difference between both lists (a
  > lot of people have done such mis-postings between both lists), possible
  > respondents or other persons named in such a dispute should not be
  > harmed, especially if they may not even be aware of the posting.
  > 
  > A dispute can be understood as an indicator that something was done
  > incorrectly, especially if it is posted to an open list. Even if the
  > case is dismissed (or withdrawn) later, the dispute will not be answered
  > on said open list (there will be no reference to the case file). So
  > anybody who reads that list will not be informed over the same channel
  > about the result of the case, which often is not the one the claimant
  > asked for.
  > 
  > Because of this, I feel that this kind of mails (disputes) should be
  > removed in general from the support mailing list.
  > 
  > 
  > The specific named dispute is even worse than normal disputes, as it
  > already forestalls some things which are the job of the Arbitrator, like
  > deciding who will be respondents and claimants and numbering and/or
  > representing them.
  > 
  > This mail is written as if it would be the header of a case file and by
  > this implies even more to the readers of the support mailing list, that
  > all this is already fixed (and maybe even reviewed) by an Arbitrator,
  > instead of just being a dispute which could in theory even not be
  > accepted by Arbitration based on DRP 1.5 (which is unlikely in this case
  > but not decided at the time where the dispute is filed).
  > 
  > This together - and if one takes into account some previous actions of
  > the author of that mail against the named first respondent (me) of that
  > mail - can be read as an attempt to discredit my person. (There is a not
  > trivial chance that it will be read accordingly, even if it was not
  > written with this intention.)
  > 
  > -- 
  > mit freundlichen Grüßen / best regards
  > Eva Stöwe

Dispute by (C2) Benny Baumann

• > Dear Support,
  > 
  > please remove my post to the cacert-support@l.c.o list concerning the
  > dispute I filed. The mail was accidentially sent to the wrong email
  > address due to auto-completion issues while handling some
  > time-constrained work.
  > 
  > The subject of the mail was "Dispute: Harm to swift processing of
  > security issue" sent [date and time].
  > 
  > Kind regards,
  > BenBE.

Discovery

Elaboration

Ruling

Execution

Similiar Cases

• issue ticket s20150726.76

• issue ticket s20150727.18

---

• CategoryArbitration

• CategoryArbCaseSystemTasks