- Case Number: a20111230.1
- Status: init
- Claimants: Dominik G
Respondents: <anonymized>
Initial Case Manager: UlrichSchroeter, at 2016-12-08 EvaStöwe disclosed dispute based on DRO decision m20161119.4 and m20161119.3
- 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 filing about Junior Member
- Relief: TBD
Before: Arbitrator name arbitor (A), Respondent: <anonymized> (R), Claimant: Dominik G (C), Case: a20111230.1
History Log
- 2011-12-30 (issue.c.o) case [s20111230.47]
- 2012-01-02 (iCM): added to wiki, request for CM / A
Original Dispute, Discovery (Private Part)
Link to Arbitration case a20111230.1 (Private Part)
EOT Private Part
Original Dispute
> Dear support, > > please file dispute againt the CAcert community for the following case. > > On 2011-12-29, I met [member] on the 28c3 in a > co-audit session. In the mutual assurance, I noticed that he is a > Junior member (and Junior assurer). > > I asked for the necessary parental consent which he couldn't provide. > Further investigations brought up the following facts: > > - the member is fully assured by more than 3 assurers > - at least one of these assurers must be considered experienced, if not > senior > - the member has already assured ~ 15 people (and noticed the implied > 10 points upper boundary) > - the member has never heard of PoJAM or the parental consent form > before and was never asked for it during an assurance > - all this took place in 2011 when PoJAM was in POLICY state! > > > Obviuosly, this is not the Juniors fault and besides that, we cannot > get him into arbitration anyway (that's why we enforce PoJAM !). So the > case should be filed against the community to have an Arbitrator ask > support for the assurers of the Junior and brief them about the > consequences their ignorance of policy documents can have. > > > Basic details of the Junior Member: > > Name: [members name] > DoB: [members DoB] > E-Mail: [members e-mail] > > > Evidence for the arbitration was gathered by the following experienced > and senior assurers: > > - myself > - [AS1] ([email]) > - [AS2] ([email]) > > > Of course, I accept CCA and DRP under this arbitration. > > 2011-12-30, CARS > > -- > Mit freundlichen Grüßen, > With kind regards, > > Dominik G[...]
Parts in [] anonymised by EvaStöwe for possible privacy reasons at time of publishing dispute. This may be adjusted by later CM or Arbitrator
Discovery
Ruling
Execution
Similiar Cases