• Arbitrations
• a20110418.1

• Case Number: a20110418.1
• Status: closed
• Claimants: Felix S
• Respondents: CAcert

• Case Manager: BernhardFröhlich

• Arbitrator: UlrichSchroeter

• Date of arbitration start: 2011-04-19
• Date of ruling: 2011-04-29
• Case closed: 2011-04-30
• Complaint: Delete Account / Account Cleanup
• Relief: TBD

Before: Arbitrator UlrichSchroeter (A), Respondent: CAcert (R), Claimant: Felix S (C), Case: a20110418.1

History Log

• 2011-04-18 (issue.c.o) case [s20110418.48]
• 2011-04-19 (A): added to wiki, request for CM / A

• 2011-04-19 (A): I appoint the (CM) as per Arbitration Team meeting 2011-04-05 decision

• 2011-04-19 (A): sending init mailing with CCA/DRP acceptance request to (C)
• 2011-04-19 (C): accepts CCA/DRP under this arbitration
• 2011-04-19 (A): answering questions to (C)
• 2011-04-19 (A): requesting infos from (C) about account #1 and account #2: a) Full Name, b) primary email
• 2011-04-20 (C): sending infos over account #1 (before marriage), account #2 (after marriage)
• 2011-04-20 (A): sending proposed action plan based on dispute filing and rcvd infos of accounts to (C) to confirm
• 2011-04-20 (A): request to (Support), infos of account #1 + #2 of (C)
• 2011-04-20 (C): confirms to proposed exec steps, proposal for 2 Name change w/ Assurances
• 2011-04-20 (A): infos regarding 2 addtl. assurances to (C)
• 2011-04-20 (Support): [s20110420.23] sends requested infos
• 2011-04-21 (A): intermediate ruling #1
• 2011-04-21 (A): sending intermediate ruling #1 to (C) with exec order request to (Support)

• 2011-04-21 (A): sending clarifications to the intermediate ruling to (C) with links to a20090510.3, with request to answer a few questions

• 2011-04-21 (Support): [s20110421.6] exec report to intermediate ruling #1
• 2011-04-21 (C): answered questions
• 2011-04-22 (A): intermediate ruling #2
• 2011-04-22 (A): send intermediate ruling #2 to (C)
• 2011-04-22 (A): asking (C) to search for 2 assurers

• 2011-04-23 (A): intermediate ruling #2 forwarding to a20110221.1

• 2011-04-23 (AO): added ruling definitions from intermediate ruling #2 to Assurance Handbook (AH) section Questions Answered

• 2011-04-27 (C): sends in names and emails of 3 Assurers (AS1), (AS2), (AS3)
• 2011-04-27 (A): requesting infos from (AS1), (AS2), (AS3) about (C)'s names before/after marriage
• 2011-04-28 (AS2): confirms to name change request
• 2011-04-28 (AS1): confirms to name change request
• 2011-04-28 (AS3): confirms to name change request

Original Dispute, Discovery (Private Part)

• Link to Arbitration case a20110418.1 (Private Part)

EOT Private Part

Discovery

• Based on (C)'s statement dated 2011-01-18, this case probably relates to an account cleanup, not on a delete account procedure, to be handled as regular arbitration case, so regular init mailing
• (C)'s statement dated 2011-04-18 within dispute filing clarifies this case as account cleanup after starting with new account after name change after marriage
  • (C)'s CCA agreement not to terminate
• (C) made an assurance with account #1 over account #2

Intermediate Ruling

• Discovery info send by (Support) [s20110420.23] revealed a non AP conform assurance.
• I hereby order (Support)
  1. to revoke assurance on account #2
  2. to lock account #2
  3. to revoke administrative increase on account #1

Frankfurt/Main, 2011-04-21

Intermediate Ruling #2

• By following running Arbitration case a20090510.3 findings regarding multiple accounts and self assurance of a 2nd account, I came hereby to the following intermediate ruling (references to Respondent is Claimant in the current case):

Ruling on multiple accounts

• Respondent has multiple accounts.

• A CAcert community member has a CAcert login account (see the Assurance Policy)

• Such an account is the link between the Member (person) and the CAcert system, and information regarding the member (like name, DoB, assurance status) is linked to that account. Although there is no rule that forbids having two or more accounts, it is not recommended, since it can cause problems.

• Ruling: It is not forbidden to have multiple accounts

Ruling on multiple accounts with assurer status

• 1 of Respondents accounts have assurer status

• There is no rule that forbids a CAcert Member to have two accounts with assurer status. However, a Member with assurer status assures, and uses a CAcert account to register the assurance. Since an Assurer can only assure another member (a person) only once, it is forbidden for an assurer to assure a single person and register that assurance with more than one account. An assurer can only give the number of points linked to the account that is used to assure someone. Therefore, since having multiple assurer accounts is not required, it is strongly advised not to allow them.

• Ruling: It is not forbidden to have multiple assurer accounts

• Ruling: To avoid issues like this one, CAcert shall review if having multiple assurer accounts is acceptable

Ruling on assuring your own accounts

• Respondent assured 1 of his other accounts

• Ruling: An assurer cannot meet himself/herself face-2-face. Therefore all assurances by Respondent of accounts of the Respondent are invalid and must be revoked incl. revocation of experience points.

Further rulings

• Araised that potential double accounts exists, this topic should be added to another arbitration case a20110221.1 as addtl. recuring logical sys review, that accounts with self assurance should be reported to Support or AO and then to be refered to Arbitration

• By hearing (C)'s apology regarding the assurance over (C)'s 2nd account, I confirm to claimants argumentation, that assuring your own account is subject of interpretations in current versions of Assurance Policy (AP) and Assurance Handbook (AH). First clearly defined by sub rulings within Arbitration a20090510.3.
  As these rulings had not been written yet into AP or AH, I hereby order AO to add a section to Assurance Handbook, that covers this topic for clarification. I hereby state, that Assurers has to be adviced clearly that its forbidden to assure another account of his own. There is also a problem here:
  Who should advice the user ?
  The process flow in becoming an Assurer is a path on receiving upto 100 Assurance points and passing the CATS test. There is no one who can advice the assurer candidate at this point, except the Assurers who assures the user. As there are far more topics that have to be added into an educated assurance, this topic cannot be covered within this process easily as this is only one of many topics to be covered within an educated assurance and there is no rule to process each assurance as an educated assurance. So the only way to cover this special topic is to add this into the Policies or Handbooks to be read by the Assurer candidates.

• The sub rulings regarding revocation of the assurance and experience points have been executed by Support by the intermediate #1 ruling.
• Assurers who assured her own 2nd account, should receive an advice, that this is prohibited by the rules.
• (C) got his advice in the clarification to the intermediate ruling #1
• Current Arbitration case should continue with the main relief, in gathering evidence to correct users Lastname of (C)'s account #1 and an account cleanup of (C)'s account #2

Frankfurt/Main, 2011-04-22

Discovery II

• 2011-04-27 (A): requesting infos from (AS1), (AS2), (AS3) about (C)'s names before/after marriage

  Assurer#	Assurers Name	Confirms Name Change
  AS1	Christian T	{g}
  AS2	Wolfgang S	{g}
  AS3	Christian K	{g}

Ruling

The final ruling has to cover several topics

1. confirmation to the intermediate rulings #1 and #2
2. addtl. activities to order based on intermediate ruling #1 and #2
3. the relief request of dispute filing
   1. delete account w/o CCA termination
   2. name correction after marriage

Part I

• the intermediate ruling about Assurance revocation I confirm to be final.
• The user after creating his 2nd account could asserts that he did not know, that its forbidden to assure themselves.
• At the time of entering the self assurance into the online system, the AP rollout did happen since about 9 months, but the user did not attend an ATE yet. The only source of informations was AP and AH and passing the CATS test.
• An assurer cannot meet himself/herself face-2-face

  • effected policies: Assurance Policy (AP)

  • AP 0.1. Definition of Terms
    • Assurance
      • Assurance is the process by which a Member of CAcert Community (Assurer) identifies an individual (Assuree).
  • AP 0.2. The CAcert Web of Trust
    • In face-to-face meetings, an Assurer allocates a number of Assurance Points to the Member being Assured. CAcert combines the Assurance Points into a global Web-of-Trust (or "WoT").
  • AP 1. Assurance Purpose
    • With sufficient assurances, a Member may: ..., (b) participate in assuring others
• If someone reads carefuly these policy text phrases, an interpretation is impossible, its forbidden to assure himself/herself.
• But, as long this topic is not written explicitly, one may come into temptation to assure his/her 2nd account. There are a lot of soft rules defined w/o any black/white view, like the Members name rule. Under AP 2.1 its defined to be strict and AP 2.2 reverses it.

• So intermediate ruling #2 that clarifies intermediate ruling #1 that is also defined under similiar case a20090510.3 is based upon AP 0.1, 0.2, 1.0

• So therefor the given assurance is invalid as stated in intermediate ruling #1 and intermediate ruling #2 and has to be revoked (action taken under intermediate rulings)

Part II

• The question if policy should clarify, that its forbidden to make a self assurance is subject to the Assurance Handbook (AH) as Assurance Handbook is for clarifications given by Arbitration or documenting common practice added by AO. So AO was ordered to add this topic to Assurance Handbook (AH). This has been added after intermediate ruling now.

• The user who did the self assurance should receive an advice. User received his advice with clarifications to intermediate ruling #1.
• No further actions to take.

Part III

• "Delete 2nd Account"
  • User confirmed, that both accounts are under his control
  • User accepted CCA / DRP under this dispute filing and still continues to be a community member with his account #1 so there is no CCA termination in this case to handle

  • (Support) should execute the "delete my account" procedure for SE's v2 on (C)'s account #2 with printout of current state, to free the email address, so the user can add the email address from account #2 onto his account #1 by hijacking the account according to procedure Delete Account Procedure for SE v2

• "Name Change after Marriage"
  • 3 Assurers confirmed (C)'s name change after marrige
  • 3 Assurers followed the request for sending in a confirmation about the users name change by checking two different ID documents. One with the name before marriage, the 2nd document with the name after marriage. The evidence has succeeded.
  • So therefor I order (Support) to change the Lastname in (C)'s account #1 as requested.

Frankfurt/Main, 2011-04-29

Execution

• 2011-04-29 (A): ruling send to (C)
• 2011-04-29 (A): exec order request to (Support) to process the ruling over (C)'s accounts #1 and #2
• 2011-04-30 (Support): [s20110429.78] exec report: account #2 deleted, account #1 Lastname corrected
• 2011-04-30 (A): exec order request to (C): login to account #1, add email from account #2, make primary email
• 2011-04-30 (C): exec report, changed primary email
• 2011-04-30 (A): final notification to (C), (AS1), (AS2), (AS3). Case Closed.

Similiar Cases

see also: Arbitrations Training Lesson 20 - Arbitration Case - Delete Account Request

• CategoryArbitration

• CategoryArbCaseAccountDataNameModificationsRequested

• CategoryArbCaseAccountCleanup

• CategoryArbCaseOtherAssurerErrors