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 <https://community.icann.org/display/gnsosoi/New+SOIs> > On 24 Jan 2022, at 16:18, Andrew Alston <[email protected]> > 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 > <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 <[email protected]> > Sent: Monday, January 24, 2022 4:32:17 PM > To: Andrew Alston <[email protected]>; Mike Silber > <[email protected]>; Ben Maddison <[email protected]>; JORDI PALET > MARTINEZ <[email protected]> > Cc: General Discussions of AFRINIC <[email protected]> > 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 > <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 > <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> 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 <[email protected]> > 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 <[email protected]> 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 > [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> > https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/community-discuss > <https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/community-discuss>
_______________________________________________ Community-Discuss mailing list [email protected] https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/community-discuss
