Strangely enough, I concur too. If you look at my original complaint to Jordi, anonymity was not mentioned. I only raised it when asked why I requested action. And I agree: anonymity in itself is not a problem. Anonymity + irrelevance is a problem, in my opinion. Regards Brian On 23/10/2013 07:50, John C Klensin wrote: > Although I usually object to doing this, +1. Well stated and I > strongly concur. > > john > > > --On Tuesday, October 22, 2013 10:41 -0800 Melinda Shore > <melinda.shore@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >> The more I've been thinking about this the less comfortable >> I am with how this was executed. I have no disagreement >> whatsoever with removing this person's posting privileges. >> But, I have a huge problem with Jordi's statement: >> >> "As Sergeant-at-arms, I agree with other previous >> postings and believe that anonymous posting is not >> tolerable in the IETF mail exploders." >> >> Clearly, there are non-trivial problems around making decisions >> on the basis of something sort of like identity in >> unauthenticated email. We don't *really* know who other >> people are - we tend to assume that they are who they say they >> are and evaluate their credibility (or not) on things like >> content, reputation, past performance, etc. The problem with >> mars.techno.cat@xxxxxxxxx isn't that he (and since we're >> pretty sure we know who this is, we'll stick with masculine >> pronouns) has an email address that doesn't look like a name >> (although his name could have been Mars Techno Cat, as >> unlikely as that is). The problem is that he had no prior >> history of posting -as that name- and posted nothing but >> off-topic rants and personal attacks. I would hope that the >> attacks would be sufficient to have his posting privileges >> revoked and that having an unfamiliar email address would not >> be sufficient. >> >> Additionally, let me suggest that finding anonymous posts >> "not tolerable" is inconsistent with the perpass discussions >> and concerns expressed *here* about privacy. >> We want accountability in our documents and that means knowing >> that the people who contribute to our work 1) have technical >> substance, and 2) are having their comments and text evaluated >> by other people of technical substance. It does not >> necessarily mean knowing their names or identities. In many >> discussions about privacy and about whether or not various >> cryptographic technologies have been deliberately weakened by >> some US government agency, there have been repeated assertion >> that open processes and aggressive review provide protection >> against that sort of problem. That ought to apply here, as >> well. >> >> Anonymity is not a problem. Behaving badly is a problem. >> I really never want to see someone's ejection justified on >> the basis of their putative "anonymity" again. I am not >> arguing that mars.techno.cat@xxxxxxxxx ought to be allowed >> anywhere near an IETF mailing list but that the reason that >> was given for throwing him off was not correct. We should >> be working to protect anonymity and privacy, not punishing it. >> >> Melinda > > > > >