Hi Mike, On 01/24, Mike Silber wrote: > Hi Ben > > > On 24 Jan 2022, at 12:08, Ben Maddison <[email protected]> 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
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ Community-Discuss mailing list [email protected] https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/community-discuss
