• Arbitrations
• a20130225.1

• Case Number: a20130225.1
• Status: closed
• Claimants: Joel S

• Respondents: CAcert, UlrichSchroeter

• Case Manager: Philipp Dunkel

• Initial Case Manager: AlexRobertson

• Arbitrator: Philipp Dunkel p.dunkel at cacert .org
• Date of arbitration start: 2013-02-28
• Date of ruling: 2013-02-28
• Case closed: 2013-02-28
• Complaint: Remove personal info
• Relief: n/a

Before: Philipp Dunkel (A), Respondent: CAcert (R) UlrichSchroeter (R2), Claimant: Joel S (C), Case: a20130225.1

History Log

• 2013-02-28 (issue.c.o) case s20130225.78

• 2013-02-28 (iCM): added to wiki, request for CM / A
• 2013-02-28 (iCM): Counterclaim from (R2)
• 2013-02-28 (A) : Ruled and Closed. Informed Claimant by e-mail.

Original Dispute, Discovery (Private Part) (optional)

• Link to Arbitration case a20130225.1 (Private Part), Access for (CM) + (A) only)

---- Forwarded message from Joel S ---

From: Joel S
To: support AT cacert.org
Subject: Private Informationen entfernen von den Websites von CAcert
Date: 2013-02-25 16:13:42

> Guten Tag
> 
> Ich wäre Ihnen dankbar, wenn sie meine Namen in jeglicher Form von den 
> Websites von CAcert entfernen könnten. Also die folgenden Namen: "Joel 
> S...", "Joel" und "rimshot".
> 
> Entdeckte Seite: http://wiki.cacert.org/Arbitrations/a20090406.1
> 
> Können Sie dies so tun?
> 
> Freundliche Grüsse
> 
> Joel S
> 
---- End forwarded message ---

Discovery (optional)

• 2013-02-28 (iCM) Counterclaim from (R2)

  ---- Forwarded message from <ulrich AT cacert.org> ---
  
  From: 
  To: "'CAcert Support'" <support AT cacert.org>
  Cc: "'Martin Gummi'" 
  ReplyTo: 
  Subject: dispute filing: remove wiki entry permanently a20090406.1  (was:   RE: Wiki-Eintrag permanent löschen: Arbitrations/a20090406.1)
  Date: 2013-02-27 23:32:58
  
  > Dear Support,
  > 
  > I hereby file a counterclaim to the direct followup email by Joel 
  > Studler to me as Arbitrator of the referenced case that is a followup 
  > of the existing support ticket [s20130225.78] that have been moved to 
  > the disputes queue but had not transfered onto the Arbitration queue 
  > yet.
  > 
  > probably the case gets the arbitration case # a20130225.1 (?!?) (based 
  > on first filing by Joel Studler)
  > 
  > I hereby reject the members direct request to modify an existing 
  > arbitration case file 2 1/2 years after the case file has been closed 
  > and ask the member to file it as a new dispute.
  > 
  > Regarding this case, from my PoV
  > there is no simple answer and no simple processing possible.
  > 
  > q: Is it an appeal?
  > a: No ... the dispute is nothing about the processing and
  >    ruling of the referenced case.
  > q: Is it to handle as a post note to the referenced case? 
  > a: No. The relief is
  >    a. to remove the complete arbitration case file -or-
  >    b. to modify closed arbitration documentation
  >       not only to add a late arbitration case note,
  >       so to remove the arbitration parties name
  >       from the dispute file.
  > 
  > Either way, this needs an arbitrators ruling. x1) So therefor to 
  > handle as a new case.
  > 
  > background infos:
  > 
  > DRP [1] 2.2 + 2.3  references to the governing law (NSW, Australia) 
  > and the international arbitration act 1974 [2] that makes the 
  > definition of public arbitration case files. Read also [3] Publication 
  > and Privacy. CAcert in principle follows the AU law regarding 
  > Arbitration by Court of Record [4] DRP 2.3 also has another reference 
  > ->
  >     Areas where laws fall outside the Arbitration Act, such as 
  > privacy;
  > x2)
  > DRP 3.1 + 3.2 gives some more details what to record in public
  > 
  > As the original case still followed some unorthodox processing (CCA 
  > [5] acceptance by (R) has not received by email, Arbitrators and Case 
  > Managers had been replaced, CCA acceptance by (R) has been referenced 
  > to signed CAP forms with CCA clause) I hereby reference this case to a 
  > new dispute filing.
  > 
  > Back in 2010 within the arbitration team meetings [6] we had a 1 year
  > (!)
  > ongoing discussion about this topic "how to record names and privacy 
  > info in arbitration files"  -> read the minutes and transcripts from 
  > the meetings of 2010/2011 the final results found its way into the 
  > arbitration/training documents [7] but, as said, after a lot of hot 
  > and controversal discussions. So the conclusion reached can be seen as 
  > an appeal result, result out of an arbitrators team, probably every 
  > arbitrator by the time was involved in these discussions ... (-> no 
  > easy processing)
  > 
  > new cases will be processed under the new conclusion definitions 
  > reached.
  > old cases left as is (and there was a lot of them (100? 150?) by the 
  > time conclusion was reached)
  > 
  > ABC cases are an exception, backed up by the SP paragraph "SP personal 
  > gives up some rights to protect others" (or similar
  > meaning)
  > 
  > x1) we had a few (1, 2, 3) rare cases, where late arbitrator rulings
  >     have been given to justify a final ruling or to explain a ruling
  >     in more details. This all in the exec processing of a case, and the
  >     file was not closed yet.
  > 
  > x2) there are some cases where in the dispute processing
  >     parties asked to remove the name from the case file.
  >     Mostly, an intermediate ruling has been given by the
  >     arbitrators under the running case
  >     (mostly names in such cases have been <anonymized> )
  >     Handling of underaged people (PoJAM cases) is also
  >     under different processing.
  >     Here the name of the junior member gets anonymized
  >     and the name of the parents has to be set
  > 
  > Further readings: Differences between Common-Law and Civil-Law [8] 
  > (abstract by PhilippDunkel)
  > 
  > Law chain path:
  > DRP [1] => Governing Law NSW,AU [9] => Associations Incorporation Act
  > 2009
  > [10]
  > => Corresponding Law [11] => Corporations Act 2001 [12] and others 
  > [13]
  > 
  > I'm still running out of time to investigate further applicable law 
  > references.
  > The fact is, that CAcert had defined policies including an own 
  > internal CAcert Arbitration system with the provisions made, that 
  > dispute files are published according to definitions made under DRP 
  > and handbooks to be covered by accepting the CAcert Community 
  > Agreement.
  > 
  > Also to consider DRP 2.3 (partly)
  > "Areas where laws fall outside the Arbitration Act, such as privacy;"
  > here to name CAcert's privacy policy [14] and Privacy and Personal 
  > Information Protection Act - NSW 1998 [15] an arbitrator has to review 
  > the claims made and have to decide if this current case falls outside 
  > of Arbitration or not ....
  > 
  > 
  > 
  > --
  > mit freundlichen Gruessen / best regards Ulrich Schroeter - CAcert 
  > Assurance Team Leader, CAcert Case Manager, CAcert Arbitrator
  >  
  > CAcert.org - Free Certificates
  > E-Mail: 
  > 
  > 
  > [1] https://www.cacert.org/policy/DisputeResolutionPolicy.php
  > [2] http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/iaa1974276/
  > [3] 
  > http://svn.cacert.org/CAcert/Arbitration/arbitration_case_manager.html
  > [4] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Court_of_record
  > [5] https://www.cacert.org/policy/CAcertCommunityAgreement.php
  > [6] http://wiki.cacert.org/Arbitrations/Meetings
  > [7] http://wiki.cacert.org/Arbitrations/Training
  > [8] http://wiki.cacert.org/ArbitrationPractices
  > [9]
  > http://www.fairtrading.nsw.gov.au/Cooperatives_and_associations/Runnin
  > g_an
  > _association/Resolving_disputes.html
  > [10] http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/nsw/consol_act/aia2009307/
  > [11]
  > http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/nsw/consol_act/aia2009307/s4.html#c
  > orre
  > sponding_law
  > [12] http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/ca2001172/
  > [13] http://www.legislation.nsw.gov.au/
  > [14] https://www.cacert.org/policy/PrivacyPolicy.html
  > [15]
  > http://www.legislation.nsw.gov.au/fullhtml/inforce/act+133+1998+FIRST+
  > 0+N
  > 
  > -----Original Message-----
  > From: Joel S
  > Sent: Wednesday, February 27, 2013 4:41 PM
  > To: 
  > Cc: Martin Gummi
  > Subject: Wiki-Eintrag permanent löschen: Arbitrations/a20090406.1
  > 
  > 
  > Guten Tag Herr Schroeter
  > 
  > Ich bitte Sie, den Wiki-Eintrag mit der Arbitration "a20090406.1"
  > permanent zu löschen, so dass er weder auf Suchmaschinen auffindbar 
  > ist noch direkt aufgerufen werden kann oder durch .
  > 
  > https://wiki.cacert.org/Arbitrations/a20090406.1
  > 
  > 
  > Alternativ könnten Sie ihn auch anonymisieren, indem Sie die Namen 
  > "Joel S…", "Joel" und "rimshot" von dieser Seite löschen und die 
  > alten Versionen von dieser Seite löschen.
  > 
  > 
  > Ich bitte Sie, dies noch diese Woche durchzuführen. Vielen Dank!
  > 
  > 
  > 
  > Gruss, Joel
  > 
  ---- End forwarded message ---

EOT Private Part

Discovery

n/a

Ruling

Dear Joel,

I have taken the case a20130225.1 on and am dismissing it as a matter of policy.

During the original case a20090406.1 you were found to have accepted the CCA and the DRP by signing several Assurance Forms with the acceptance of CCA on them. You have just now reiterated your acceptance of the CCA and DRP by filing a new dispute.

The DRP (http://www.cacert.org/policy/DisputeResolutionPolicy.php) clearly states in point 3.1

The Arbitrator records:

        • The Identification of the Parties,
        • The Facts,
        • The logic of the rules and law,
        • The directions and actions to be taken by each party (the ruling).
        • The date and place that the ruling is rendered.

Since none of the Data-Pieces you request to have removed exceeds the mentioned items, nor do they qualify as especially worthy of protection ("besonders schützenswert"). Due to these circumstances the case is to be dismissed as a matter of policy.

Best Regards,
Philipp Dunkel
(Arbitrator)

Execution

n/a

Similiar Cases

• CategoryArbitration

• CategoryArbCaseOthers