A better approach to security

[<ulrich AT cacert.org>]

Dear Johan, Joost, Niek and others,

Regarding Arbitration case a20091128.2
https://wiki.cacert.org/Arbitrations/a20091128.2

I hereby come to the following ruling:

== Discovery ==
 * 6 assurances received before 11/2005
 * AP pushed out mid 2009 to the Community starting with the ATE's
 * http://www.meertens.knaw.nl/voornamen/vnb/ "Nederlandse Voornamen
Databank",
   see https://wiki.cacert.org/Arbitrations/a20091118.2
 * A precedents case exists: a20090618.12
   https://wiki.cacert.org/Arbitrations/a20090618.12
   "User not registered under full name. Ruling accepts a common short
name in the account."
 * (A) follows procedure "Arbitration Training Lesson 34 - Investigation
on Dutch Name variations"
   https://wiki.cacert.org/Arbitrations/Training/Lesson34
 * PracticeOnNames (https://wiki.cacert.org/PracticeOnNames)
   has been updated after precedents case a20090618.12
   https://wiki.cacert.org/Arbitrations/a20090618.12
   with a section Country Variations

== Ruling ==
 * My ruling follows precedents case a20090618.12
   https://wiki.cacert.org/Arbitrations/a20090618.12
   This Ruling accepts a common short name variation in the account
   based on AP 2.2 "different language or country variations"
 * Respondent has been advised following the procedure as outlined under
   "Arbitration Training Lesson 34 - Investigation on Dutch Name
variations"
   https://wiki.cacert.org/Arbitrations/Training/Lesson34
   about problems with Assurers from other countries. Respondent prefers
   to leave the Givenname in his Account as is.
 * So I hereby rule, that Respondent can leave his Givenname in his
account unchanged.
 * Deliberations to this ruling you'll find in the precedents case
a20090618.12
   https://wiki.cacert.org/Arbitrations/a20090618.12
 * No actions on Assurers over (R) as assurances were made before AP has
been pushed out to the Assurers.
 * To the Assurers:
   Last year starting with the ATE's Assurers learned to allow only such
names
   in Account that match the IDdocs (strictly). However, as the name rules
are
   in flux, the Dutch "roepnaam" problem hasn't been investigated deeply
before
   the first dispute filings started. Since the ruling of precedents case
a20090618.12
   https://wiki.cacert.org/Arbitrations/a20090618.12  new infos received
the
   Assurance Officer and also the Arbitrators about an existing
   http://www.meertens.knaw.nl/voornamen/vnb/ "Nederlandse Voornamen
Databank"
   (this info received me last weekend on an interview with respondent of
case a20091118.2
   https://wiki.cacert.org/Arbitrations/a20091118.2
   So on any doubt also international Assurers can check Dutch common
short name
   variations against the name found in the ID doc. But consider, this
rule is
   _no_ clearance for general Nicknames
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nickname).
   Like me, my givenname is Ulrich. This is everytime a problem for people
from
   Anglo-American culture to speak, so I moved to the "Rufname" or
"roepnaam": Uli.
   This is to read as a Nickname, because
    a. it doesn't follow the Dutch common short name variation
       (country variation, that is allowed under AP 2.2),
       from the Nederlandse Voornamen Databank
       (http://www.meertens.knaw.nl/voornamen/vnb/): Ulrich relates to
Oldrik
    b. I'm not a citizen from the Netherlands, so the Dutch country
variation doesn't apply
   Btw. another country with known givenname country variation is Belgium,
but the
   Nederlandse Voornamen Databank
(http://www.meertens.knaw.nl/voornamen/vnb/)
   doesn't include these.
 * To the Education Team and Assurance Officer:
   Please consider to add above examples to the presentations of the ATE
season 2010 and also to the PracticeOnNames

Frankfurt/Main, 2010-09-09


--
mit freundlichen Gruessen / best regards
Ulrich Schroeter - CAcert Assurance Team Leader, CAcert Case Manager,
CAcert Arbitrator

CAcert.org - Free Certificates
E-Mail: ulrich AT cacert.org

Attachment: smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature