Policy-Discussion

[Eva Stöwe <estoewe AT cacert.org>]

Dear Ian,

I asked Benedikt the same, when we discussed it. His answer was that as
long as there is no such policy it will be Arbitration again.

Which I was not completely happy with, as I want to free Arbitration at
least from the death (as it is too late) and maybe the service ending
cases, as Arbitration may be one part of the service that is gone by them.

But there may be arguments to remove the need of Arbitration from the other
points as well. 

In the case that the termination is based on an Arbitration ruling, we need
no further reference to Arbitration.

And in the last case - that a member wants to resign - the in effect
arbitration ruling is to let it be done by support without even learning
that there is such a case until the account is closed and later only
learning, that there was a case of retirement. (Only exception are
assurers, but Arbitration works hard to get it to a comparable level.)

So I actually doubt that Arbitration is needed in those cases at all.
However, I do not mind as long as Arbitration is not blocked by thos
termination cases, again in the future. (We will probably get hit on our
fingers by the Auditor as we are doing it, but there were quite good
reasons for this.)

On Thu, 15 May 2014 15:53:43 +0100, Ian G 
<iang AT cacert.org>
 wrote:
> On 14/05/2014 00:21 am, Grégoire Sandré wrote:
>> Dear Eva,
>>
>> I support your 20140512 proposal: 
>>
>> "3.3  Termination 
>>
>> This agreement might be terminated by
>>  1.  A member's wish to resign from CAcert. 
>>  Resignation can be initiated at any time by writing support AT
>>  cacert.org by filing a dispute.
>> 2.the exclusion of a member by an arbitrator.
>> 3.the death of a member.
>> 4.the termination of CAcert's services.
>>  
>> The provisions on Arbitration survive any termination by you by leaving
>> CAcert. That is, even if you resign from CAcert, you are still bound by
>> the DRP (COD7), and the Arbitrator may reinstate any provision of this
>> agreement or bind you to a ruling.
>>
>>
>> Details are governed by a Policy."
> 
> If you are removing the heavy restriction on "only the Arb" and also
> pointing to a policy hasn't been written yet, this creates a hole which
> needs to be filled.
> 
> Which is to say, if we could see such a policy then we might be more
> encouraged to vote for its ascension in the above clause...
> 
> iang

-- 
mit freundlichen Grüßen / best regards
Eva Stöwe
CAcert Assurer
CAcert Arbitrator & Case Manager
CAcert.org - Free Certificates
E-Mail: 
estoewe AT cacert.org