Policy-Discussion

[Ian G <iang AT cacert.org>]

On 15/05/2014 16:10 pm, Eva Stöwe wrote:
> 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.

That's an odd use of words.  I'm guessing that what you mean is that
Benedikt is thinking it might be a good idea to explore alternatives to
Arbitration as a termination of the CCA?


> 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.

The point of the clause was always that an arbitration ruling was
involved.  Once the Arbitrator has created a precedent then that takes
over.  This meets the clause.

Or, do you mean there is an argument for policy group to remove the
Arbitrator from a termination without even a precedent?  That I don't
understand.


>
> 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.)


I don't follow that.  However, if a precedent is created for this case,
then the policy is satisfied, right?


>
> So I actually doubt that Arbitration is needed in those cases at all.

Well, precedents are designed to fill out the cases where we know how to
handle it in general.


> 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.)


I don't follow.  Arbitration blocked?


iang


>
> 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