Policy-Discussion

[Eva Stöwe <eva.stoewe AT cacert.org>]

Dear Ian,

Am 15.05.2014 21:11, schrieb Ian G:
> 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?

I do not want to predict what Benedikt thinks, he is able to provide
this information himself. ;-)

But I discussed the issue with him and the bst solution we could think
of was to write it clearly in a policy. That is better and more obvious
than an Arbitration precedent case, that could and had changed over time.

By placing it in a policy everybody could read the rules for termination
right at the beginning and could participate if they should be changed.

>> 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.

I do not see it like this, so instead of having everybody decide only
one person should decide it for all. And this person even decided (from
my point of view quite sensible) to not get involved with it after that
decision.

> 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.

There is a precedent.

Everything that does not match a policy directly would go back to
arbitration anyway. So every complication that you/we can not solve by
writing such a policy will be handled by arbitration, as it is done with
other subjects where there is a policy, too. Like assurance issues.

>> 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?

Not from my point of view. Policy says that an arbitrator is the one to
terminate it. YOU are arguing this quite heavily that no part of the
executive power should be allowed to do so.

But currently it's support and support alone. Sure, based on a
precedents ruling.

But
- no arbitrator is informed that someone wants to quit
- no arbitrator is informed that the CCA with someone was terminated
- no arbitrator can tell without a new dispute who was the person who
left CAcert
- no arbitrator can tell if the precedent was followed from support

The only thing that is visible to an arbitrator is the same that is
visible to anybody else - an entry in the wiki with a support case number.

Arbitrator cannot get any information based on this support number, as
we do not see what support can see - which is a good thing to separate
the powers.


There is no involvement from arbitration. Arbitration cannot involve
itself. And this is what Arbitration evolved over the years.

So where is the need for Arbitration, here?

Sure, complicated or dubious cases will need an arbitration. But this
will be the case, whatever we decide here.


>> 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.

The same is true for policies. ;-)


>> 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?

Yes. Those termination cases either get left lying around for years by
Arbitration - which is a big problem - or arbitration cannot do anything
else but just treat such cases.

Arbitration will have enough to do with termination based on
CCA-violations. This can not easily moved away from arbitration - if not
defined in a policy.

I do not see why Policy Group fights so hard to not grab the power and
solve it by their own. Why should not everybody be able to get involved
in the definition of the rules for termination?

> 
> 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
> 

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

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