[Community-Discuss] ID verification on the Database Working Group mailing list

Mike Silber silber.mike at gmail.com
Mon Jan 24 09:43:19 UTC 2022

Thanks Ben

Some useful inputs and a few responses.

> On 24 Jan 2022, at 11:35, Ben Maddison <benm at workonline.africa> wrote:
> I think that we are conflating two separate problems.

Valid comment.
> If the WG chairs are doing their job, astroturfing *should* be a
> non-issue. A valid argument ought to be taken as seriously whether it
> comes from one individual or one-hundred.
> The additional noise that it creates is certainly irritating, but then
> so are flies.
> We should collectively take a deep breath and ignore it.

Noted and agreed.

> The question of affiliation disclosure is, imo, more important.
> I believe that the expectation on every list should be the same as at
> the microphone at an in person meeting: identity yourself and state your
> affiliation before you speak.

Spot on!
> If a sender's affiliation is not obvious (From: domain, signature, etc),
> then the chairs and/or moderators should challenge them to state it.
> Failure[*] to do so should:
> A)  be an indication to the community (and particularly for the purposes
>    to considering consensus) that any arguments presented should be
>    viewed with great skepticism; and
> B)  be a CoC violation, eventually resulting in a ban.

I accept your point - but think it would be better served on subscribing to the mailing list [or to retain your posting rights] rather than on a challenge basis. One post escapes the challenge and then there are claims of favouritism :-) 
> In both cases, however, I think that the solution is for readers of the
> list to to so critically, rather than for AFRINIC to become an identity
> provider.
> In any event, seeing someone's passport tells you nought about how their
> rent gets paid.

Very valid points.
> [*]:
>    I consider "private individual", "internet community member", "no
>    hats", etc, to be bogus responses in this context.
>    It may be important for individuals to make it clear that they are
>    not speaking on behalf of their employer, but that should not exempt
>    them from stating who their employer (etc) is.
>    For example, I work for Workonline Communications (AS37271). The
>    above is my personal opinion.
Completely agree. I work for a member, however am not the member representative and hence prefer to use my personal address to distinguish myself from our official representative. It should be obvious from a quick search - but certainly no harm in calling it out specifically!

> Cheers,
> Ben

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.afrinic.net/pipermail/community-discuss/attachments/20220124/e573df74/attachment.html>

More information about the Community-Discuss mailing list