I only see a big con: many members (some I know) don't want their real identity to be visible. Most people do it anyhow so I think better respect freedom and right to privacy.
ipernity would loose members by voting this and why trouble still waters unnecessarily ?

I am a member (among others) of FC Bayern München and FC St. Pauli.
At least the latter is clearly defined as what we call a club, comparable to ipernity.

And I know neither the identity of all the nearly 300,000 members of FC Bayern, nor the identity or even the country from which the more than 30,000 FC St. Pauli - members come. And I do not know the names of all the members of the much smaller clubs of which I am otherwise a member.

And a request to print out the list of members with the data of these members and send it to me would not only be doomed to failure because of the amount of paper it would use, but would also be prohibited under European law.

There is a right to informational self-determination and users are entitled to anonymous use wherever laws do not prohibit it.

Personal data is protected under the General Data Protection Regulation and Article 8 of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights and may not be disclosed to anyone against the will of the user.

In this respect, because of that the following is wrong: "In all Clubs usually every member has access to a member directory.".
People who give out such data about others against their will are liable to prosecution.

That summs two major cons, your statement and mine.

+1

I would also like to point out that on January 27, 2022, the German Federal Supreme Court prohibited the obligation to use a clear name for all Facebook accounts that were registered before May 25, 2018.

The Supreme Court has considered the users' right to informal self-determination and the protection of their identity to be more valuable than all of the arguments put forward by Facebook in favour of a requirement to use a clear name.

Unfortunately, the German Federal Supreme Court did not take a position on the current legal situation in Germany under the GDPR, because the case concerned an account that had been set up before May 25, 2018. (This is the day when the GDPR came into force.)

Although my real name is available, this is purely because I was involved in the very early stages of the takeover.
To be quite honest, I prefer the option to use my "nickname" in preference to declaring my real name.

I also note that the IMA has access to member's "real identity" as a legal requirement.

As for location, just the member's country.
But again, no compulsion to declare it.

To bring this to some sort of conclusion can someone tell everyone if this user is just a Club member like me or is part of the IMA team. Thanks.
www.ipernity.com/user/2273046

Officially it's not an IMA team member, but seems to have a lot of influence and also seems to be under kind of protection of the IMA board. I did a little bit of research, and at least it seems to be clear, that it is a female member. She posted only 47 public images, mostly digital works. To be honest, she was the reason for my proposel today, but I expected, that there is no chance that it will be accepted. Stefan (Kiezkickerde) and Eric Desjours as well as Bernhard know her better, I'm sure.

Her behaviour and the reaction of the board was the reason, that I've set all my 10000 (around) photos to "private" after a membership of 14 years and switched to Flickr. I've prepaid until the end of 2024, so I'm still here.

Hi Colin, *ઇઉ* is a normal club member like you. She is not a member of the ima team and never has been. (By the way: the composition of the ima-team is documented here:
www.ipernity.com/user/team?rev=31)

On duty, *ઇઉ* is my co-administrator in the group: www.ipernity.com/group/2341904
*ઇઉ* does the pre-selection of proposed pictures there. In cases of doubt, she asks me to review them. Apart from that, we (*) have no contact, neither privately nor in our work for ipernity.

Since I respect the wish for anonymity for every member, I have done the same for her.

(*) We does not means the ima team, but her and me as a private persons.

Thanks Berny I will keep in contact on Flickr.

In no way do I know this person better. I just went through my iperMail inbox and it goes back 14 years (that's 61 pages). It only contains mails from people (i.e. no system mails). I have not been able to find a single iperMail from this person.
From you, on the other hand, I found 15 iperMails. So you can assume that I know you much better than the person you claim I know.
And yet I wouldn't claim to know you because of that.

So you shouldn't come up with any wild theories that have no basis in fact.

Lieber Berny, *ઇઉ* hat keinen anderen Einfluss auf den Vorstand als Du. Sie beteiligt sich lediglich (mal mehr, mal weniger) in den verschiedenen Diskussionen, Dabei vertritt sie (wie Du) engagiert ihre eigene Meinung, die sich mitnichten immer mit der Meinung des Vorstands deckt. Ich erinnere nur an die Sträuße, die der Vorstand (2020?) im Hinblick auf die Optimierung des Webseiten-Designs mit ihr ausgefochten hat. Dennoch war das gut, weil solche Diskussionen alle Beteiligten zwingen, sich mit den Themen vertieft zu befassen.

Ihr Wunsch nach Anonymität hat mich anfangs auch überrascht. Aber ich habe ihn immer respektiert. Außerdem: Was hätte ich davon zu wissen, dass sie womöglich die echte Erika Mustermann ist und in München wohnt?

Im Übrigen sehe ich Deinen Antrag durchaus positiv. Er hat uns alle dazu gezwungen, uns eingehend mit der Materie zu befassen. Denn es geht dabei ja nicht nur um Meinungen oder Vorlieben, sondern um ganz handfeste juristische Fragestellungen: Darf man das überhaupt? Wie könnte man Identitäten rechtssicher erfassen? Wie hoch wäre der Aufwand? Lohnt sich das im Hinblick auf den Nutzen? Welcher Nutzen wäre das? Und so weiter.

Eigendlich müsste man so was alles abklären, bevor ein Antrag gestellt wird. Und selbst wenn es einen gewissen Nutzen gäbe, müsste man sich auch anschauen, ob es negative Folgen haben könnte. Man will das Kind ja nicht mit dem Bade ausschütten.

Was ich in der Diskussion nicht erwähnt habe: Ich hab mich natürlich bei allen prominenten Fotoplattformen umgesehen, wie es aktuell dort gehandhabt wird. Nirgendwo gibt es eine Klarnamenpflicht. Nirgendwo gibt es ein Mitgliederverzeichnis. Auch bei Flickr nicht.

Und damit lass ich das Thema los. Wenn es mal wieder aktuell wird, traue ich dem dann amtierenden Vorstand einen weisen Umgang damit zu.

Thank you for the information Bernard.
I had thought it was one of the team with a second account.
Best Wishes Colin

To shed some light on the "secondary accounts": My only second account is www.ipernity.com/home/2649868 and it is clearly recognizable that it is my second account. I need this for test purposes for my ima mandate so that I can try out things related to user accounts without modifying my own account (e.g. booking subscription periods on a test basis and the like).