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

Mon Jan 24 16:58:29 UTC 2022

While I agree with some of your suggestions, I do not agree that we need to
know each other to understand each other. I believe that the validity of my
arguments should be the main determinant factor  and not whether we have
met physically before.

On Mon, Jan 24, 2022 at 2:53 PM Mike Silber <silber.mike at gmail.com> wrote:

> My request is not disclosure of affiliation - but disclosure of
> *interest*. Affiliation is but one item.
>
> In the world of a small community and face to face meetings, we got to
> know and understand each other.
>
> I think we should try retain that situation of being able to know and
> understand each other.
>
> An example here: https://community.icann.org/display/gnsosoi/New+SOIs
>
>
>
> On 24 Jan 2022, at 16:18, Andrew Alston <Andrew.Alston at liquidtelecom.com>
> wrote:
>
> Let me be clear - the affiliation to me is actually neither hear nor there
> other than on the members list - where I believe that affiliation is
> absolutely critical.
>
> The members list however is limited to members and anyone posting on there
> should be a member and should be speaking as such.
>
> To be frank though as per my previous comments - what should matter on the
> lists is the content of the message not the identity of the sender.  The
> RIRs and the ietf etc - and anywhere that engages in the concept of
> consensus based decision making is meant to look at the content of the
> messages.
>
> A single objection that is unaddressed (not necessarily resolved - but it
> has to be adequately addressed) is meant to act as a blocker.  Support by a
> million people is not a gauge of consensus - nor is the affiliation of the
> person indicating such.
>
> For some reason though we all seem to have forgotten the principles of
> consensus as best defined in rfc 7282 which can be found at
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc7282
>
> This has for years been the basis on which technical consensus is defined.
>
> Andrew
>
> Get Outlook for iOS <https://aka.ms/o0ukef>
> ------------------------------
> *From:* Anthony Ubah <ubah.tonyiyke at gmail.com>
> *Sent:* Monday, January 24, 2022 4:32:17 PM
> *To:* Andrew Alston <Andrew.Alston at liquidtelecom.com>; Mike Silber <
> silber.mike at gmail.com>; Ben Maddison <benm at workonline.africa>; JORDI
> PALET MARTINEZ <jordi.palet at consulintel.es>
> *Cc:* General Discussions of AFRINIC <community-discuss at afrinic.net>
> *Subject:* Re: [Community-Discuss] ID verification on the Database
> Working Group mailing list
>
> 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
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20220124/459c432d/attachment.html>