CAcert Code Development list.

[Ian G <iang AT cacert.org>]

I was looking at this dispute filed today ("my account name has a G in 
it and the docs do not;  the assurers won't assure me") and it occurred 
to me that problems like this are hard disputes.

They are hard because the Arbitrator can't easily assemble the evidence. 
 Partly because the refusal to assure doesn't create any reliable or 
callable evidence [1].

But also because a zero point assurance does not state what the reason 
is for lack of confidence.

What we could do is have the Assurer add in a comment into his entry 
that specifies the rough reason why no confidence established.  Then, we 
could provide some guidance to the Assurer in the Handbook, like this:

  * if there is a name clash, describe the documented name in the 
comment field.
  * if the documents are unfamiliar, put "UD - country" in the comment 
field.
  * if the DoB doesn't match, put "DoB = 10/10/10" in the comment field.

etc etc.

Then, when the Arbitrator sees a filed dispute about a Name error, she 
can get the SE to print out the last Assurances, and check the comment 
fields.  She only needs one comment field (CARS) to support the member's 
request ... and then she has the evidence needed to make the ruling.  No 
contact to user or assurer required!

How does that sound?

I think it is a bit of a change to the way CAP forms are treated ... as 
before, only verifications are done.  This is a bit more like the 
location field;  the Assurer is entering in new information about the 
assurance.

iang

[1] AP tries to rectify this because it suggests that the Assurance 
should be completed with 0 points.  at least then we have the evidence 
that something happened, which added zero confidence.

Attachment: smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature