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

[Anthony Ubah]

Hi,

Permit me to barge in into this threesome to add that, while the use of
sock puppets and crowd mentality should be discouraged in the community,
there is absolutely nothing wrong with the use of pseudonyms, nor cache
affiliations, as opinions and affiliations might not always align. Both can
also be on a collision course.

Now that I have your attention, I'll like to buttress that.

If an organization has not granted rights to an individual to represent,
that member of staff has absolutely no right to state affiliation, use
official email domain, or even identify the organization's resources in
holding like AS number or IP ranges. Doing otherwise is illigal.

Still chiming off the reason above, the call for use of organizational
email/domain name is absurd. I've enjoyed a good laugh in the background
every time some community members call for 'void' on comments for "Gmail"
users as against common sense, on the premise of 'Gmail', and nothing more.
This is a very narrow-minded call for a dozen reasons;
One, being that, while some members own, or are co-founders of their
organizations, some spend a bulk of/their entire career in one, while
others are in constant movent across organizations and regions. Different
strokes for different folks.
Hence such marginalization is not well-thought-out, and baseless. For
continuity purposes, members should be allowed to use whatever email
address they please.
Also switching emails will also put long-standing community members at risk
of being disenfranchised in voting within the community, as a new email
might not fulfil the longevity clause introduced lately for eligibility to
vote in the PDGW voting processes.

That said, I personally have no issues with verifying my own identity (I
already have), but I shouldn't be compelled to state my affiliation as a
yardstick to gauge my comments.
According to Afrinic's guidelines on this mailing list, it is for *'anybody
who has an interest in the activities of AFRINIC working groups'*, and not
for open resource holders, or affiliates.


Don't take my word for it. A quick reference to the Afrinic website will
provide some input on this. (https://afrinic.net/email)

An excerpt;

"Most of these mailing lists are open to anybody who has an interest in the
> activities of AFRINIC working groups and provides space for people to share
> information for the benefit of the entire community.
> While AFRINIC encourages the use of these lists for a healthy, relevant
> debate and information sharing, we also advise all to ensure that
> the AFRINIC Community Code of Conduct is respected."


In conclusion, the agenda being pushed is against the principles of these
guidelines and is simply dancing at the edge of a legal cliff.


Best Regards,

Anthony Ubah
*Zero Affiliation*








On Mon, Jan 24, 2022, 6:19 AM Andrew Alston via Community-Discuss <
community-discuss at afrinic.net> wrote:

> While affiliation is important - I think it’s relatively easy to solve -
> enforce a rule in the code of conduct that demands that posts contain
> either a statement of affiliation in the signature - or the company handle
> you are speaking on behalf of.
>
> If you are speaking in private capacity - the signatures can still be
> there and a clear statement that you are speaking in private capacity.
>
> This means the companies can deal with the offenders if they speak without
> authorization or if the signatures are fake.
>
> Andrew
>
>
> Get Outlook for iOS <https://aka.ms/o0ukef>
>
> ------------------------------
> *From:* Ben Maddison <benm at workonline.africa>
> *Sent:* Monday, January 24, 2022 13:09
> *To:* Mike Silber
> *Cc:* Andrew Alston; General Discussions of AFRINIC
> *Subject:* Re: [Community-Discuss] ID verification on the Database
> Working Group mailing list
>
> Hi Mike,
>
> On 01/24, Mike Silber wrote:
> > [...]
> > > On 24 Jan 2022, at 11:35, Ben Maddison <benm at workonline.africa> wrote:
> > >
> > > [...]
> > >
> > > 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 :-)
>
> Yup, that also seems a reasonable approach that I could support.
>
> 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?)
> - 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?
> - (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.
> - Probably others...
>
> Cheers,
>
> Ben
> _______________________________________________
> Community-Discuss mailing list
> Community-Discuss at afrinic.net
> https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/community-discuss
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.afrinic.net/pipermail/community-discuss/attachments/20220124/571d7717/attachment.html>