idnits 2.17.1 draft-moonesamy-recall-rev-01.txt: Checking boilerplate required by RFC 5378 and the IETF Trust (see https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info): ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- No issues found here. Checking nits according to https://www.ietf.org/id-info/1id-guidelines.txt: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- No issues found here. Checking nits according to https://www.ietf.org/id-info/checklist : ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- No issues found here. Miscellaneous warnings: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- == The copyright year in the IETF Trust and authors Copyright Line does not match the current year -- The document date (March 31, 2019) is 1852 days in the past. Is this intentional? Checking references for intended status: Best Current Practice ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- (See RFCs 3967 and 4897 for information about using normative references to lower-maturity documents in RFCs) ** Obsolete normative reference: RFC 7437 (Obsoleted by RFC 8713) -- Obsolete informational reference (is this intentional?): RFC 3777 (Obsoleted by RFC 7437) -- Obsolete informational reference (is this intentional?): RFC 4371 (Obsoleted by RFC 8714) Summary: 1 error (**), 0 flaws (~~), 1 warning (==), 3 comments (--). Run idnits with the --verbose option for more detailed information about the items above. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2 Network Working Group S. Moonesamy 3 Internet-Draft 4 Updates: 7437 (if approved) J. Klensin 5 Intended status: Best Current Practice March 31, 2019 6 Expires: October 2, 2019 8 Revision of the Recall Initiation Model 9 draft-moonesamy-recall-rev-01 11 Abstract 13 The procedures for initiating a recall specified in RFC 7437 restrict 14 signatories of a recall petition to those who are "nomcom qualified". 15 This document suggests those limitations had unanticipated and 16 undesirable side-effects and proposes to remove them. It also 17 specifies that remote participants should be allowed to seek redress 18 through the procedures and decreases the number of signatories 19 required for a recall petition. 21 This document updates RFC 7437. 23 Status of This Memo 25 This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the 26 provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79. 28 Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering 29 Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute 30 working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet- 31 Drafts is at https://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/. 33 Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months 34 and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any 35 time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference 36 material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." 38 This Internet-Draft will expire on October 2, 2019. 40 Copyright Notice 42 Copyright (c) 2019 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the 43 document authors. All rights reserved. 45 This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal 46 Provisions Relating to IETF Documents 47 (https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of 48 publication of this document. Please review these documents 49 carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect 50 to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must 51 include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of 52 the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as 53 described in the Simplified BSD License. 55 Table of Contents 57 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 58 2. Rationale . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 59 2.1. Eligibility of IAB and IESG Members and other Nomcom 60 Appointees . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 61 2.2. Eligibility of Remote Participants . . . . . . . . . . . 3 62 2.3. Number of Signatures Required . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 63 3. Recall Petition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 64 3.1. Recall Petition Initiated by the Community . . . . . . . 4 65 3.2. Recall Petition Initiated by the Ombudsteam . . . . . . . 4 66 4. Tradeoffs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 67 5. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 68 6. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 69 7. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 70 8. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 71 8.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 72 8.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 73 Appendix A. Historical Note . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 74 Appendix B. Change Log . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 75 B.1. Changes from draft-klensin-recall-rev-00 (2005-11-11) to 76 draft-moonesamy-recall-rev-00 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 77 B.2. Changes from version -00 (2019-03-23) to -01 . . . . . . 6 78 Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 80 1. Introduction 82 [RFC7437] defines the procedures for a Member Recall. The first step 83 of those procedures is to request a Member Recall by signed petition. 84 This document suggests that making IAB and IESG members ineligible to 85 initiate recalls was an undesirable side-effect and proposes to 86 remove it. It also proposes to address the unfairness to which 87 remote participants are subject by allowing them to be signatories of 88 a recall petition. Section 2 discusses some of the issues affecting 89 that step and provides the rationale. The updated text is in 90 Section 3.1. 92 2. Rationale 93 2.1. Eligibility of IAB and IESG Members and other Nomcom Appointees 95 The procedures for initiating a recall specified in [RFC7437] 96 restrict signatories to those who are "nomcom qualified". Perhaps 97 inadvertently, this prohibits members of the IESG and IAB from 98 initiating these procedures. This is probably not in the best 99 interests of the community: if there is a problem within the IESG or 100 IAB, other members of those bodies are likely to be aware of it 101 before the IETF community. 103 Conversely, members of a sitting nomcom, since they are, by 104 definition, nomcom-eligible, are now permitted to initiate recalls. 105 For them to do so appears to be a singularly poor idea, especially in 106 principle. The nomcom should not be in a position to lead in 107 determining which positions are open, nor should its members be in a 108 position to initiate removal of someone whom they hope to replace. 109 In addition, any recall action initiated by sitting nomcom members, 110 especially if they presume to act on behalf of the community, would 111 inevitably raise suspicions that confidentiality had been 112 compromised. 114 Some of the IETF Trustees [RFC4371] and IETF LLC Directors are 115 appointed by NomCom. The procedures in [RFC7437] for a "recall 116 petition" specifies "any sitting" member instead of the members who 117 were appointed by Nomcom. There is a requirement to include a 118 justification for a "recall petition". There is also a requirement 119 for the member being recalled to be given an opportunity to present a 120 written statement and consult with third parties. There is an 121 assumption that those requirements are adequate for due process. As 122 such, Section 3.1 does not distinguish between NomCom appointees and 123 other appointing bodies. 125 2.2. Eligibility of Remote Participants 127 In 2017, the IESG set a requirement for the registration of remote 128 participants at IETF meetings. However, the procedures exclude those 129 IETF participants from making a request for a Member Recall by signed 130 petition. 132 According to [RFC3777], "Volunteers are expected to be familiar with 133 the IETF processes and procedures, which are readily learned by 134 active participation in a working group and especially by serving as 135 a document editor or working group chair." There is also a "no more 136 than two signatories may have the same primary affiliation" 137 restriction. Restricting signatories to those who are "nomcom 138 qualified" disenfranchises active remote participants who reside in 139 emerging countries as they lack the extensive travel resources 140 required to seek redress. 142 The "nomcom qualified" requirement for a recall petition is contrary 143 to the spirit and one of the goals of the Internet Standards Process 144 [RFC2026] about procedures which are intended to be fair. 146 2.3. Number of Signatures Required 148 [RFC7437] requires at least 20 signatories for a recall petition with 149 no more than two of the signatories having the same primary 150 affiliation. That sets a very high barrier for a recall petition 151 even though the recall petition requires a, justification, an 152 investigation by a Recall Committee and a 3/4 majority of the members 153 of the Recall Committee who vote on the recall decision. This 154 document also proposes to decrease the number of signatures required 155 to avoid making it impractical to invoke the first step of the recall 156 procedures. 158 3. Recall Petition 160 3.1. Recall Petition Initiated by the Community 162 The first four paragraphs of Section 7.1 of [RFC7437] are replaced by 163 the following: 165 At any time, at least 10 members of the IETF community, may request 166 by signed petition (email is acceptable) to the Internet Society 167 President the recall of any sitting IAB or IESG member, IETF Trustee 168 or IETF LLC Director. All signatories must have registered to attend 169 and have participated physically or remotely at least three out of 170 the previous five IETF meetings. 172 Each signature must include a full name, email address, and primary 173 company or organization affiliation. No more than two signatories 174 may have the same primary affiliation. 176 The IETF Secretariat is responsible for confirming that each 177 signatory is qualified. A valid petition must be signed by qualified 178 signatories as specified in this section. 180 3.2. Recall Petition Initiated by the Ombudsteam 182 [RFC7776] updates [RFC7437] by allowing the Ombudsteam submit a 183 recall petition on its own and without requiring signatories from the 184 community for it to qualify as a valid petition. This document does 185 not make any change to [RFC7776] or the Ombudsteam procedures and any 186 petition originating from the Ombudsteam shall be treated as a valid 187 petition. 189 4. Tradeoffs 191 Setting up a Recall Committee is a costly effort. The risk of 192 frivolous recall petitions is mitigated by setting a threshold for 193 qualified signatories. 195 5. Security Considerations 197 This document discusses IETF procedures. It raises no security 198 issues for the Internet. 200 The risks of permitting IESG or IAB members, or remote participants 201 from abusing process by initiating a recall seem minimal: they remain 202 ineligible to be members of the recall committee itself and the 203 community would presumably swiftly oppose such abuse. 205 6. IANA Considerations 207 This document does not require any IANA actions, 209 7. Acknowledgements 211 The authors would like to thank Adrian Farrel for some of the text in 212 Section 3.1 and Section 3.2, and Brian Carpenter and Spencer Dawkins 213 for several discussions and comments that helped stimulate this 214 draft. 216 8. References 218 8.1. Normative References 220 [RFC7437] Kucherawy, M., Ed., "IAB, IESG, and IAOC Selection, 221 Confirmation, and Recall Process: Operation of the 222 Nominating and Recall Committees", BCP 10, RFC 7437, 223 DOI 10.17487/RFC7437, January 2015, 224 . 226 [RFC7776] Resnick, P. and A. Farrel, "IETF Anti-Harassment 227 Procedures", BCP 25, RFC 7776, DOI 10.17487/RFC7776, March 228 2016, . 230 8.2. Informative References 232 [RFC2026] Bradner, S., "The Internet Standards Process -- Revision 233 3", BCP 9, RFC 2026, DOI 10.17487/RFC2026, October 1996, 234 . 236 [RFC3777] Galvin, J., Ed., "IAB and IESG Selection, Confirmation, 237 and Recall Process: Operation of the Nominating and Recall 238 Committees", RFC 3777, DOI 10.17487/RFC3777, June 2004, 239 . 241 [RFC4371] Carpenter, B., Ed. and L. Lynch, Ed., "BCP 101 Update for 242 IPR Trust", BCP 101, RFC 4371, DOI 10.17487/RFC4371, 243 January 2006, . 245 Appendix A. Historical Note 247 RFC Editor: Please remove this appendix before publication. 249 The original recall procedure, as specified in RFC 2027, allowed a 250 single person, without any restrictions, to petition the Internet 251 Society President and initiate a recall any sitting IAB or IESG 252 member. That model was continued with successor documents through 253 RFC 2727. Because of concerns about the possibilities of frivolous 254 recall attempts and about what would effectively be denial of service 255 attacks on the IETF's ability to get work done, RFC 3777 increased 256 that to 20 signatories and introduced qualifications for the 257 signatories that were expressed as "nomcom eligibility". 259 Appendix B. Change Log 261 RFC Editor: Please remove this appendix before publication. 263 B.1. Changes from draft-klensin-recall-rev-00 (2005-11-11) to draft- 264 moonesamy-recall-rev-00 266 o Some discussion on the IETF list in 2005, and some followup 267 discussion offline, led to the conclusion that, just as IAB and 268 IESG members (and probably other Nomcom appointees) should allowed 269 to initiated recalls, sitting Nomcom members should not be 270 permitted to do so. New words and rationale have been added to 271 that effect. 273 o Changed update target from RFC 3777 to 7437. 275 B.2. Changes from version -00 (2019-03-23) to -01 277 o Added a new Tradeoffs Section with text about the risk of 278 frivolous recall petitions 280 o Added text in Section 3.2 to clarify that this document does not 281 change the procedures in RFC 7776 for any petition originating 282 from the Ombudsteam 284 o Added more text in Section 3.1 to replace the "qualified to be 285 voting members of a nominating committee" requirement in RFC 3777 287 Authors' Addresses 289 Subramanian Moonesamy 290 76, Ylang Ylang Avenue 291 Quatre Bornes 292 Mauritius 294 Email: sm+ietf@elandsys.com 296 John C. Klensin 297 1770 Massachusetts Ave, Suite 322 298 Cambridge, MA 02140 299 USA 301 Email: john-ietf@jck.com