<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=Windows-1252">
</head>
<body>
<div dir="ltr">
<div style=""></div>
<div style="">
<div>
<div dir="ltr">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.</div>
<div dir="ltr"><br>
</div>
<div dir="ltr">If you are speaking in private capacity - the signatures can still be there and a clear statement that you are speaking in private capacity.</div>
<div dir="ltr"><br>
</div>
<div dir="ltr">This means the companies can deal with the offenders if they speak without authorization or if the signatures are fake.</div>
<div dir="ltr"><br>
</div>
<div dir="ltr">Andrew </div>
<div dir="ltr"><br>
</div>
<div id="ms-outlook-mobile-signature">
<div><br>
</div>
Get <a href="https://aka.ms/o0ukef" style="">Outlook for iOS</a></div>
</div>
<div> </div>
<hr style="display:inline-block;width:98%" tabindex="-1">
<div id="divRplyFwdMsg" dir="ltr"><font face="Calibri, sans-serif"><b>From:</b> Ben Maddison <benm@workonline.africa><br>
<b>Sent:</b> Monday, January 24, 2022 13:09<br>
<b>To:</b> Mike Silber<br>
<b>Cc:</b> Andrew Alston; General Discussions of AFRINIC<br>
<b>Subject:</b> Re: [Community-Discuss] ID verification on the Database Working Group mailing list
<div> </div>
</font></div>
<meta name="Generator" content="Microsoft Exchange Server">
<!-- converted from text --><style><!-- .EmailQuote { margin-left: 1pt; padding-left: 4pt; border-left: #800000 2px solid; } --></style><font size="2"><span style="font-size:11pt;">
<div class="PlainText">Hi Mike,<br>
<br>
On 01/24, Mike Silber wrote:<br>
> [...]<br>
> > On 24 Jan 2022, at 11:35, Ben Maddison <benm@workonline.africa> wrote:<br>
> > <br>
> > [...]<br>
> > <br>
> > If a sender's affiliation is not obvious (From: domain, signature, etc),<br>
> > then the chairs and/or moderators should challenge them to state it.<br>
> > Failure[*] to do so should:<br>
> > A) be an indication to the community (and particularly for the purposes<br>
> > to considering consensus) that any arguments presented should be<br>
> > viewed with great skepticism; and<br>
> > B) be a CoC violation, eventually resulting in a ban.<br>
> <br>
> I accept your point - but think it would be better served on<br>
> subscribing to the mailing list [or to retain your posting rights]<br>
> rather than on a challenge basis. One post escapes the challenge and<br>
> then there are claims of favouritism :-) <br>
<br>
Yup, that also seems a reasonable approach that I could support.<br>
<br>
Assuming such a disclosure would be self asserted(?), that leaves some open<br>
questions:<br>
<br>
- How is that information provided to the reader of a message (perhaps<br>
auto inserting a link to a disclosure webpage at the foot of each<br>
message?)<br>
- How is the provided information maintained to prevent staleness when,<br>
e.g. a subscriber changes job, accepts a new consulting gig, gets<br>
elected to a board somewhere?<br>
- (Most stickily) to what extent is the provided disclosure verified,<br>
and by whom? This is hard enough in the case of positive assertions,<br>
and seems near-impossible in the case of omissions.<br>
- Probably others...<br>
<br>
Cheers,<br>
<br>
Ben<br>
</div>
</span></font></div>
</div>
</body>
</html>