Internet DRAFT - draft-moonesamy-recall-rev
draft-moonesamy-recall-rev
Network Working Group S. Moonesamy
Internet-Draft
Updates: 7437 (if approved) J. Klensin
Intended status: Best Current Practice November 9, 2019
Expires: May 12, 2020
Revision of the Recall Initiation Model
draft-moonesamy-recall-rev-03
Abstract
The procedures for initiating a recall specified in RFC 7437 restrict
signatories of a recall petition to those who are "nomcom qualified".
This document suggests those limitations had unanticipated and
undesirable side-effects and proposes to remove them. It also
specifies that remote participants should be allowed to seek redress
through the procedures and decreases the number of signatories
required for a recall petition.
This document updates RFC 7437.
Status of This Memo
This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the
provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute
working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet-
Drafts is at https://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.
Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."
This Internet-Draft will expire on May 12, 2020.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2019 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
document authors. All rights reserved.
This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
(https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
publication of this document. Please review these documents
Moonesamy & Klensin Expires May 12, 2020 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft Recall Revision November 2019
carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must
include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
described in the Simplified BSD License.
Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
2. Rationale . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2.1. Eligibility of IAB and IESG Members and other Nomcom
Appointees . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2.2. Eligibility of Remote Participants . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2.3. Number of Signatures Required . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3. Recall Petition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3.1. Recall Petition Initiated by the Community . . . . . . . 4
3.2. Recall Petition Initiated by the Ombudsteam . . . . . . . 4
4. Tradeoffs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
5. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
6. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
7. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
8. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
8.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
8.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
Appendix A. Historical Note . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
Appendix B. Change Log . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
B.1. Changes from draft-klensin-recall-rev-00 (2005-11-11) to
draft-moonesamy-recall-rev-00 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
B.2. Changes from version -00 (2019-03-23) to -01 . . . . . . 7
B.3. Changes from version -01 (2019-03-31) to -02 . . . . . . 7
B.4. Changes from version -02 (2019-05-15) to -03 . . . . . . 7
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
1. Introduction
[RFC7437] defines the procedures for a Member Recall. The first step
of those procedures is to request a Member Recall by signed petition.
This document suggests that making IAB and IESG members ineligible to
initiate recalls was an undesirable side-effect and proposes to
remove it. It also proposes to allow remote participants to be
signatories of a recall petition under some circumstances thus
addressing a possible perception of unfairness towards those who
cannot or do not travel to attend physical meetings. Section 2
discusses some of the issues affecting that step and provides the
rationale. The updated text is in Section 3.1.
Moonesamy & Klensin Expires May 12, 2020 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft Recall Revision November 2019
2. Rationale
2.1. Eligibility of IAB and IESG Members and other Nomcom Appointees
The procedures for initiating a recall specified in [RFC7437]
restrict signatories to those who are "nomcom qualified". Perhaps
inadvertently, this prohibits members of the IESG and IAB from
initiating these procedures. This is probably not in the best
interests of the community: if there is a problem within the IESG or
IAB, other members of those bodies are likely to be aware of it
before the IETF community.
Conversely, members of a sitting nomcom, since they are, by
definition, nomcom-eligible, are now permitted to initiate recalls.
For them to do so appears to be a singularly poor idea, especially in
principle. The nomcom should not be in a position to lead in
determining which positions are open, nor should its members be in a
position to initiate removal of someone whom they hope to replace.
In addition, any recall action initiated by sitting nomcom members,
especially if they presume to act on behalf of the community, would
inevitably raise suspicions that confidentiality had been
compromised.
Some of the IETF Trustees [RFC4371] and IETF LLC Directors are
appointed by NomCom. The procedures in [RFC7437] for a "recall
petition" specifies "any sitting" member instead of the members who
were appointed by Nomcom. There is a requirement to include a
justification for a "recall petition". There is also a requirement
for the member being recalled to be given an opportunity to present a
written statement and consult with third parties. There is an
assumption that those requirements are adequate for due process. As
such, Section 3.1 does not distinguish between NomCom appointees and
other appointing bodies.
2.2. Eligibility of Remote Participants
In 2017, the IESG set a requirement for the registration of remote
participants at IETF meetings. However, the procedures exclude those
IETF participants from making a request for a Member Recall by signed
petition.
According to [RFC3777], "Volunteers are expected to be familiar with
the IETF processes and procedures, which are readily learned by
active participation in a working group and especially by serving as
a document editor or working group chair." There is also a "no more
than two signatories may have the same primary affiliation"
restriction. Restricting signatories to those who are "nomcom
qualified" may appear to disenfranchise active remote participants
Moonesamy & Klensin Expires May 12, 2020 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft Recall Revision November 2019
who lack the travel resources to attend physical meetings (such as
those who reside in emerging countries) because they are unable to
use a recall petition to seek redress.
The "nomcom qualified" requirement for a recall petition is contrary
to the spirit and one of the goals of the Internet Standards Process
[RFC2026] about procedures which are intended to be fair.
2.3. Number of Signatures Required
[RFC7437] requires at least 20 signatories for a recall petition with
no more than two of the signatories having the same primary
affiliation. That sets a very high barrier for a recall petition
even though the recall petition requires a, justification, an
investigation by a Recall Committee and a 3/4 majority of the members
of the Recall Committee who vote on the recall decision. This
document also proposes to decrease the number of signatures required
to avoid making it impractical to invoke the first step of the recall
procedures.
3. Recall Petition
3.1. Recall Petition Initiated by the Community
The first four paragraphs of Section 7.1 of [RFC7437] are replaced by
the following:
At any time, at least 10 members of the IETF community, may request
by signed petition (email is acceptable) to the Internet Society
President the recall of any sitting IAB or IESG member, IETF Trustee
or IETF LLC Director. All signatories must have registered to attend
and have participated physically or remotely at least three out of
the previous five IETF meetings.
Each signature must include a full name, email address, and primary
company or organization affiliation. No more than two signatories
may have the same primary affiliation.
The IETF Secretariat is responsible for confirming that each
signatory is qualified. A valid petition must be signed by qualified
signatories as specified in this section.
3.2. Recall Petition Initiated by the Ombudsteam
[RFC7776] updates [RFC7437] by allowing the Ombudsteam submit a
recall petition on its own and without requiring signatories from the
community for it to qualify as a valid petition. This document does
not make any change to [RFC7776] or the Ombudsteam procedures and any
Moonesamy & Klensin Expires May 12, 2020 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft Recall Revision November 2019
petition originating from the Ombudsteam shall be treated as a valid
petition.
4. Tradeoffs
Setting up a Recall Committee is a costly effort. The risk of
frivolous recall petitions is mitigated by setting a threshold for
qualified signatories.
5. Security Considerations
This document discusses IETF procedures. It raises no security
issues for the Internet.
The risks of permitting IESG or IAB members, or remote participants
from abusing process by initiating a recall seem minimal: they remain
ineligible to be members of the recall committee itself and the
community would presumably swiftly oppose such abuse.
6. IANA Considerations
This document does not require any IANA actions,
7. Acknowledgements
The authors would like to thank Adrian Farrel for some of the text in
Section 2.2, Section 3.1, and Section 3.2, and Brian Carpenter and
Spencer Dawkins for several discussions and comments that helped
stimulate this draft.
8. References
8.1. Normative References
[RFC7437] Kucherawy, M., Ed., "IAB, IESG, and IAOC Selection,
Confirmation, and Recall Process: Operation of the
Nominating and Recall Committees", BCP 10, RFC 7437,
DOI 10.17487/RFC7437, January 2015,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7437>.
[RFC7776] Resnick, P. and A. Farrel, "IETF Anti-Harassment
Procedures", BCP 25, RFC 7776, DOI 10.17487/RFC7776, March
2016, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7776>.
Moonesamy & Klensin Expires May 12, 2020 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft Recall Revision November 2019
8.2. Informative References
[RFC2026] Bradner, S., "The Internet Standards Process -- Revision
3", BCP 9, RFC 2026, DOI 10.17487/RFC2026, October 1996,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2026>.
[RFC3777] Galvin, J., Ed., "IAB and IESG Selection, Confirmation,
and Recall Process: Operation of the Nominating and Recall
Committees", RFC 3777, DOI 10.17487/RFC3777, June 2004,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3777>.
[RFC4371] Carpenter, B., Ed. and L. Lynch, Ed., "BCP 101 Update for
IPR Trust", BCP 101, RFC 4371, DOI 10.17487/RFC4371,
January 2006, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4371>.
Appendix A. Historical Note
RFC Editor: Please remove this appendix before publication.
The original recall procedure, as specified in RFC 2027, allowed a
single person, without any restrictions, to petition the Internet
Society President and initiate a recall any sitting IAB or IESG
member. That model was continued with successor documents through
RFC 2727. Because of concerns about the possibilities of frivolous
recall attempts and about what would effectively be denial of service
attacks on the IETF's ability to get work done, RFC 3777 increased
that to 20 signatories and introduced qualifications for the
signatories that were expressed as "nomcom eligibility".
Appendix B. Change Log
RFC Editor: Please remove this appendix before publication.
B.1. Changes from draft-klensin-recall-rev-00 (2005-11-11) to draft-
moonesamy-recall-rev-00
o Some discussion on the IETF list in 2005, and some followup
discussion offline, led to the conclusion that, just as IAB and
IESG members (and probably other Nomcom appointees) should allowed
to initiated recalls, sitting Nomcom members should not be
permitted to do so. New words and rationale have been added to
that effect.
o Changed update target from RFC 3777 to 7437.
Moonesamy & Klensin Expires May 12, 2020 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft Recall Revision November 2019
B.2. Changes from version -00 (2019-03-23) to -01
o Added a new Tradeoffs Section with text about the risk of
frivolous recall petitions
o Added text in Section 3.2 to clarify that this document does not
change the procedures in RFC 7776 for any petition originating
from the Ombudsteam
o Added more text in Section 3.1 to replace the "qualified to be
voting members of a nominating committee" requirement in RFC 3777
B.3. Changes from version -01 (2019-03-31) to -02
o Editorial change to Section 2.2
B.4. Changes from version -02 (2019-05-15) to -03
o New version submitted due to expiration of draft.
Authors' Addresses
Subramanian Moonesamy
76, Ylang Ylang Avenue
Quatre Bornes
Mauritius
Email: sm+ietf@elandsys.com
John C. Klensin
1770 Massachusetts Ave, Suite 322
Cambridge, MA 02140
USA
Email: john-ietf@jck.com
Moonesamy & Klensin Expires May 12, 2020 [Page 7]
