- Case Number: a20151028.1
- Status: init
- Claimant: Ian G
Respondent: Benny B [disclosed by EvaStöwe after dispute was filed]
- 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 based on report of attack on arbitration
- the facts should be established and clearly laid out in the ruling.
- CCA should be terminated.
- All roles, all points and all certificates.
- The person - no longer a member - should be banned from events.
- I also seek termination of all assurances done by the person, on the basis that a threatening person brings into question the nature of assurance. This question however requires some thought.
Before: Arbitrator name arbitrator (A), Respondent: Benny B (R), Claimant: Ian G (C), Case: a20151028.1
- 2015-10-28 (issue.c.o): case [s20151028.75]
- 2016-11-20 (iCM): added to wiki, request for CM / A
- 2016-11-20 (iCM): notified (C), (R) about case
Link to Arbitration case a20151028.1 (Private Part), Access for (CM) + (A) only
EOT Private Part
> I file Dispute against the perpetrator of below act. I consider this to > > be (a) a threat, and (b) an attempt at extortion. This is against the > law, and against our principles. It is also an attempt to effect a > running Arbitration in which the person is named, which is tampering > with the process of disputes. > > Relief: Given the criminal nature of this complaint, only a serious > response can be acceptable to the community. I therefore seek all of > the below. > > 1. the facts should be established and clearly laid out in the ruling. > 2. CCA should be terminated. > 3. All roles, all points and all certificates. > 4. The person - no longer a member - should be banned from events. > 5. I also seek termination of all assurances done by the person, on the > > basis that a threatening person brings into question the nature of > assurance. This question however requires some thought. > > iang, CARS > > > -------- Forwarded Message -------- > Subject: report of an attack > Date: Wed, 28 Oct 2015 07:39:12 +0100 > From: Eva Stöwe [email] > Reply-To: Eva Stöwe [email] > Organization: CAcert > To: CAcert Board [email of public board mailing list] > > > > Dear board, > > I have thought about this some while. First I just decided, to ignore > it. But then the requirement to be transparent to report attacks, which > is installed in our principles and the SP came to mind - and did not > leave. > > Normally I would just note this down in the according case file, but > there are multiple affected. So I have decided, to report this here. > > Some days ago, a member (of a team that is governed by our security > policy) wrote to me: > > "Tritt bitte freiwillig aus Arbitration zurück oder > leg alle Cases in denen [someone else] oder ich beteiligt sind binnen 14 > Tagen nieder, oder es wird nicht nur auf der internen Liste SEHR > hässlich werden." > > Translation: "Please resign from Arbitration voluntary or at least lay > down all cases where [someone else] or I are involved within the next 14 > days, else it will be VERY ugly not only on the internal list." > > It was not part of a real discussion or anything, where it may have been > understood as an advice after one has presented a lot of arguments or > whatever, there was not much more context to that sentence. > > I cannot read it otherwise than as a threat. > > To resign to be the Arbitrator of a case requires an explicit decision > of the Arbitrator. So someone tries to coerce me as the Arbitrator of a > case to do a specific arbitration decision in that case. (Or more > precisely multiple cases.) > > I fear I have to interpret this as an intentioned attack against the > independence and impartiality of me as an Arbitrator. > > By writing this I fulfil the requirement to document/report attacks. I > will not (and may not) let this affect me. So maybe you should prepare > yourself that it could get "very ugly", somewhere. > > For the moment, I do not think that it matters, who the member is, so I > do not reveal that person, here. > > (I have not come to a conclusion if it will affect the course of any of > my cases, or anything else. This is just a report about the incident.) > > For completeness: > This was about a week ago. > > CARS, > Eva Stöwe ---- End forwarded message ---
Note: The respondent was not known to the claimant at time of filing. But it was knonw to Arbitration as the original mail was send by an Arbitrator out of the context of running cases, this knowledge is used for determining the respondent at time of setting up the case file.
list to be reviewed
relation based on: