Subject: Appeal

From: Fred Baker <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 11 Oct 2000 14:34:36 -0400

On January 27, 2000, the IESG received a complaint from
"D. J. Bernstein" <[email-masked]> concerning the management of the
namedroppers mailing list. This note is a response to that complaint.

Background: Mr. Bernstein has voiced complaints about management of
the namedroppers mailing list in the past, dating back to at least
December, 1998. At that time the IESG discussed the issues being
raised concerning the moderation of the namedroppers mailing
list. That discussion reaffirmed previous IESG discussions that
moderation of WG mailing list was a useful and appropriate tool in
limited circumstances and that moderation of namedroppers was
appropriate. Problems with moderation can be dealt with through normal
IETF processes.  The Internet Area Directors received a formal
compliant on January 15, 2000. The ADs responded to the complaint on
January 26 (attached below). Mr. Bernstein's January 27th complaint to
the IESG cites dissatisfaction with the AD response.

Mr. Bernstein's basic complaint is:

> In short, to use the language of RFC 2026 section 6.5.1: Mismanagement
> of the namedroppers mailing list is preventing the IETF DNSEXT working
> group from adequately considering the views of its participants, and is
> placing the quality and integrity of the working group's decisions in
> jeopardy.

The IESG has reviewed the facts at its disposal concerning this
complaint and concludes that the overall complaint lacks
merit. Specifically, the IESG reaffirms that the moderating of mailing
lists is a useful and appropriate WG tool, and the IESG supports such
moderations in some circumstances. In the specific case of
namedroppers, a moderated mailing list, the IESG does not find the the
moderation policy to be inappropriate. Nor does the IESG find that the
specific incidents cited taken as a whole constitute mismanagment of
the mailing list as indicated.

A more detailed description of the IESG's policy with regards to
moderated mailing lists can be found at
http://www.ietf.org/IESG/STATEMENTS/moderated-lists.txt.

Mr. Bernstein also asks:

> I also demand that the IESG immediately answer the following specific
> factual questions:

>    (1) Before my December 1998 complaint, had the IESG already
>        considered and approved Bush's methods of controlling the
>        namedroppers mailing list?

The IESG had talked about moderated lists prior to the 1998 complaint,
but does not recall if namedroppers was specifically discussed prior
to the 1998 complaint. Moderation of namedroppers was discussed by the
IESG in 1998.

>    (2) Before my December 1999 complaint, had the IESG already
>        considered and approved Bush's methods of controlling the
>        namedroppers mailing list?

Yes.

>    (3) If the answer to #1 or #2 is yes: Why did the IESG not say so in
>        response to my complaint?

The IESG should have responded to your 1998 complaint.

>    (4) If the answer to #1 or #2 is yes: Exactly what methods did the
>        IESG approve, and when?

It is OK to moderate in order to reject SPAM & other postings
unrelated to WG.  Posters should be notified whenever a posting is
rejected (unless obvious SPAM).

>    (5) If the answer to #1 or #2 is yes: What steps did the IESG take to
>        subject its action to public review?

The IESG is unable to subject every one of its decisions to public
review. In this case, it was felt that moderation of mailing lists in
limited circumstances was consistent with standard IETF processes.

Fred Baker
IETF Chair

===========================
From: Thomas Narten <[email-masked]>
To: "D. J. Bernstein" <[email-masked]>
cc: [email-masked], [email-masked] (Randy Bush),
    Olafur Gudmundsson <[email-masked]>, [email-masked]
Date: Wed, 26 Jan 2000 23:01:00 -0500
Subject: Re: namedroppers mismanagement 

On January 15, 2000, the Internet ADs received a complaint from
D. J. Bernstein entitled "namedroppers mismanagement". This note is
our response.

The jist of the complaint was summarized by Mr. Bernstein as:

> In short, to use the language of RFC 2026 section 6.5.1: Mismanagement
> of the namedroppers mailing list is preventing the IETF DNS working
> groups from adequately considering the views of their participants, and
> is placing the quality and integrity of the working group's decisions in
> jeopardy.

The Internet ADs do not agree with this assertion. In particular:

1) The Internet ADs are aware that the mailing list is moderated and
   support the chairs efforts in keeping WG activities focussed on WG
   chartered deliverables.

2) The specific 7 incidents cited include:

   - 3 that occurred more than a year ago, [not considered due to
     statue of limitations considerations]
   - 1 involving lack of timely approval of a posting, [inevitable
     with a moderated list] 
   - 1 involving what was clearly a problem with the mailing list
     software [a message posted at the same time by one of the ADs was
     also caught in the same timewarp] 
   - 1 involving a message that  was rejected as off-topic (with a
     note suggesting a different mailing list)
   - 1 involving a message that was forwarded to dnsop, rather than
     being posted to namedroppers, without the author being told this
     was being done.

   We do not see any evidence that one of the WG chairs, Randy
   Bush's moderating activities "actively and deliberately bias the
   mailing list discussions". (As a side note, namedroppers is
   actually co-moderated by Randy Bush and Mark Kosters.) However, we
   have sent a reminder to the chairs/moderators that all rejected
   postings (including messages forwarded to a more appropriate list
   instead) should result in an explanatory note being sent to the
   author.

Finally, in your note:

> P.S. Is there an email address for the Internet Society Board of
> Trustees? I have the individual addresses of the current members but
> would prefer to use a group address if one exists.

We feel compelled to point out that in the event that further appeals
are deemed necessary, the process to follow is outlined in RFC
2026. Specifically, the next place to appeal this response is the
IESG, followed by (if necessary) the IAB. Note that appeal to the ISOC
is specifically mentioned in section 6.5.3 of 2026.

Thomas & Erik