- Case Number: a20090707.1
- Status: running
- Claimants: Ulrich S
- Respondents: Peter T
Case Manager: BernhardFröhlich
- Date of arbitration start: 2010/08/29
- Date of ruling: 2012/07/01
- Case closed: 200Y/MM/DD
Hi Support, At Linuxtag Berlin at June 24th 2009, i've assured Peter T with the primary Email Address: <<snip>> At home, i've tried to transfer the given assurance points, but i cannot continue, 'cause the names field includes 3 chars, that i didn't seen in the shown documents (German IDcard, Drivers License) On the ID documents i've seen Givenname: Peter Surname: T In the Account i've found: Account shows: Peter T pth This conflicts http://www.cacert.org/policy/AssurancePolicy.php 2.1. The Member's Name Therefor i cannot continue my assurance process until this difference is fixed. At the face-to-face meeting, Peter hasn't an account. In the meanwhile the account has 45 points from 2 other assurers as stated by Peter from a reply to my first request for correction to Peter >From Peter T To Ulrich S Sent: Mo 06.07.2009 09:29 > > Hallo Ulrich, > > > > was meinst DU mit "Namenszusatz" - kann Ja nur an meiner > > Sauklaue > > (Handschrift) liegen - ich habe gar keinen Plan was Du meinst > > - ich habe inzwischen 45 Punkte von 2 weiteren die mich auf > > dem LinuxTag "assured" haben. Please fix the name field in Peters Account 'cause he didn't can fix it by himself (got 45 points) Thanks in advance ...
- Relief: TBD
Before: Arbitrator MarioLipinski (A). Respondent: Peter T (R) Claimant: Ulrich S (C) Case: a20090707.1
- 2010-08-29 (CM): Arbitrator appointed for this case
- 2010-09-04 (A): Sent initial mail to R and C.
- 2010-09-04 (A): Requested a list of all assurances rcvd by R.
- 2010-09-05 (A): C accepts CCA / DRP, sends info: cannot assure suffix.
- 2010-09-05 (CM): Support provides information: Two Assurances have been made.
- 2010-11-03 (A): sent reminder to R
- 2011-02-15 (A): sent reminder to R
- 2011-09-14 (CM): Asked A for status, offered to switch roles.
- 2011-09-16 (A): Draft Ruling
- 2012-07-01 (A): Ruling
- 2012-07-02 (A): Received reply by C. Asks for account deletion.
- 2012-07-03 (A): Follow-up, offering C to continue case and corrent name. Deadline for answer: 2012-07-17.
R did not answer any initial mailing asking for acceptance of CCA / DRP.
The account of R should be deleted. R is violating CAcerts rules that require him to keep his email in good working order and / or to participate in arbitration. Since last message to R was quite some time ago, execution to be delayed at least 14 days after ruling in case R follows up. CCA termination date will be documented after execution.
Berkeley, CA, 2011-09-16 Mario Lipinski
R's account should be deleted. R is violating CAcerts rules that require him to keep his email in good working order and/or to participate in arbitration. Since last message to R was quite some time ago, execution to be delayed at least 14 days after ruling in case R follows up. CCA termination date will be documented after execution.
It was considered to not delete the account and to just block it. As R is unresponsive it seems to me as arbitrator the best way to also aim for CCA termination.
Berkeley, CA, 2012-07-02 Mario Lipinski
Removal of title in suffix
Additional names in account