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

[Ben Maddison]

Hi Mike,

On 01/24, Mike Silber wrote:
> Hi Ben
> 
> > On 24 Jan 2022, at 12:08, Ben Maddison <benm at workonline.africa> wrote:
> > 
> ...
> > Assuming such a disclosure would be self asserted(?), that leaves some open
> > questions:
> > 
> > - How is that information provided to the reader of a message (perhaps
> >  auto inserting a link to a disclosure webpage at the foot of each
> >  message?)
> 
> I think simply having a live disclosure page would be sufficient. No
> need for inserting a link.
> 
As a reader, I would prefer to have a link to follow when curious about
the origin of a particular message, as opposed to going digging.
But implementation details...

> > - How is the provided information maintained to prevent staleness when,
> >  e.g. a subscriber changes job, accepts a new consulting gig, gets
> >  elected to a board somewhere?
> 
> In the ICANN world the expectation is an annual update, unless actual
> changes have occurred. WG group members generally are very responsible
> about updating. I suppose you can find a way to disable posting
> privileges if not updated every 12 months. Practical implementation is
> best left to staff.
>  
Sounds sane to me.

> > - (Most stickily) to what extent is the provided disclosure verified,
> >  and by whom? This is hard enough in the case of positive assertions,
> >  and seems near-impossible in the case of omissions.
> 
> Agreed - this is where your recommendation to the WG to ignore
> provocation from posters is useful, as well as guidance to the chairs
> to consider inputs more carefully when a clear SOI does not indicate a
> link between a poster’s affiliation and the assertions they make. For
> example - a poster making assertions about the difficulty of
> administering an abuse contact, yet the poster’s SOI does not incite
> any actual role in administering a network would signal that they may
> simply be a paid and undisclosed shill.

Yes, exactly the example I would have used :-)

> They could be asked to update their SOI or have posting privileges
> removed.
> 

This probably involves substantial additional work for someone. But
unfortunately unavoidable since we don't seem to be able to rely on good
faith at this point.

I think we are on the same page. Curious to hear what others have to
say.

Cheers,

Ben
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 833 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <https://lists.afrinic.net/pipermail/community-discuss/attachments/20220124/9068a3ac/attachment.sig>