Policy-Discussion

[Iang <iang AT iang.org>]

FTR, I copy below an extract from the recent meeting as 
minuted at http://wiki.cacert.org/wiki/TopMinutes-20070917 .

This was a dispute filed under the new Dispute Resolution 
Policy, and was heard at the 'top' with some cautionary remarks.

Name it as more food for storming brains.



=================================
Our first dispute!.

We took time out of the agenda to talk about the first 
dispute lodged under the Dispute Resolution Policy. Since 
the details of the dispute resolution should be private, and 
anyway it had not yet been assigned appropriately, we 
discussed a "straw man" case similar to the one in question.

Before: Arbitrator Greg Rose (A). Respondent: Teus Hagen (R) 
Claimant: Evaldo Gardenali (C) Case: a20070921.1

1. A: The case will be heard hypothetically only.

2. A: Are the parties happy to have hearings in front of 
group? Yes.

3. A: Claimant claims that Respondent was assured even 
though he didn't have documents on him that proved he was 
indeed the person on the website.

4. A: Claimant, did you ever certify Teus?

    * C: No. I had the documents and it did not match.

5. C: Claimant challenges Respondent to produce official dox 
that match the name. 6. A: A reasonable person should know 
that first names may differ according to conventions. There 
is little or no difference between Greg and Gregory.

7. A: Uphold the right of the claimant to refuse the assurance.

8. R: You might choose not to set a rule that applies to any 
other case. We cannot go back and change the cases where 
this occurs. Every policy and change can cause severe 
systems changes. There are costs in just fixing. If there is 
a rule, did it happen after the first assurance of 
Respondent has happened? Be careful.

9. A: I undertook a reasonable man's search for the rule, 
and couldn't find it.

10. A: I direct CAcert (the board) to clarify the rule. I do 
not make an order on this issue.

11. A: If the Claimant had acted badly, we might have to 
revoke all certificates. There seems to be no intent to act 
badly in this case.

12. A: If the Assurances were to be revoked it would cause a 
ripple effect. Therefore no such order is made.

13. A: I Dismiss the action.

Arbitrator closes the case.
=================================