idnits 2.17.1 draft-moonesamy-recall-rev-02.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 (May 15, 2019) is 1807 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 May 15, 2019 6 Expires: November 16, 2019 8 Revision of the Recall Initiation Model 9 draft-moonesamy-recall-rev-02 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 November 16, 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 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 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 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 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 . . . . . . 7 78 B.3. Changes from version -01 (2019-03-31) to -02 . . . . . . 7 79 Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 81 1. Introduction 83 [RFC7437] defines the procedures for a Member Recall. The first step 84 of those procedures is to request a Member Recall by signed petition. 85 This document suggests that making IAB and IESG members ineligible to 86 initiate recalls was an undesirable side-effect and proposes to 87 remove it. It also proposes to allow remote participants to be 88 signatories of a recall petition under some circumstances thus 89 addressing a possible perception of unfairness towards those who 90 cannot or do not travel to attend physical meetings. Section 2 91 discusses some of the issues affecting that step and provides the 92 rationale. The updated text is in Section 3.1. 94 2. Rationale 96 2.1. Eligibility of IAB and IESG Members and other Nomcom Appointees 98 The procedures for initiating a recall specified in [RFC7437] 99 restrict signatories to those who are "nomcom qualified". Perhaps 100 inadvertently, this prohibits members of the IESG and IAB from 101 initiating these procedures. This is probably not in the best 102 interests of the community: if there is a problem within the IESG or 103 IAB, other members of those bodies are likely to be aware of it 104 before the IETF community. 106 Conversely, members of a sitting nomcom, since they are, by 107 definition, nomcom-eligible, are now permitted to initiate recalls. 108 For them to do so appears to be a singularly poor idea, especially in 109 principle. The nomcom should not be in a position to lead in 110 determining which positions are open, nor should its members be in a 111 position to initiate removal of someone whom they hope to replace. 112 In addition, any recall action initiated by sitting nomcom members, 113 especially if they presume to act on behalf of the community, would 114 inevitably raise suspicions that confidentiality had been 115 compromised. 117 Some of the IETF Trustees [RFC4371] and IETF LLC Directors are 118 appointed by NomCom. The procedures in [RFC7437] for a "recall 119 petition" specifies "any sitting" member instead of the members who 120 were appointed by Nomcom. There is a requirement to include a 121 justification for a "recall petition". There is also a requirement 122 for the member being recalled to be given an opportunity to present a 123 written statement and consult with third parties. There is an 124 assumption that those requirements are adequate for due process. As 125 such, Section 3.1 does not distinguish between NomCom appointees and 126 other appointing bodies. 128 2.2. Eligibility of Remote Participants 130 In 2017, the IESG set a requirement for the registration of remote 131 participants at IETF meetings. However, the procedures exclude those 132 IETF participants from making a request for a Member Recall by signed 133 petition. 135 According to [RFC3777], "Volunteers are expected to be familiar with 136 the IETF processes and procedures, which are readily learned by 137 active participation in a working group and especially by serving as 138 a document editor or working group chair." There is also a "no more 139 than two signatories may have the same primary affiliation" 140 restriction. Restricting signatories to those who are "nomcom 141 qualified" may appear to disenfranchise active remote participants 142 who lack the travel resources to attend physical meetings (such as 143 those who reside in emerging countries) because they are unable to 144 use a recall petition to seek redress. 146 The "nomcom qualified" requirement for a recall petition is contrary 147 to the spirit and one of the goals of the Internet Standards Process 148 [RFC2026] about procedures which are intended to be fair. 150 2.3. Number of Signatures Required 152 [RFC7437] requires at least 20 signatories for a recall petition with 153 no more than two of the signatories having the same primary 154 affiliation. That sets a very high barrier for a recall petition 155 even though the recall petition requires a, justification, an 156 investigation by a Recall Committee and a 3/4 majority of the members 157 of the Recall Committee who vote on the recall decision. This 158 document also proposes to decrease the number of signatures required 159 to avoid making it impractical to invoke the first step of the recall 160 procedures. 162 3. Recall Petition 164 3.1. Recall Petition Initiated by the Community 166 The first four paragraphs of Section 7.1 of [RFC7437] are replaced by 167 the following: 169 At any time, at least 10 members of the IETF community, may request 170 by signed petition (email is acceptable) to the Internet Society 171 President the recall of any sitting IAB or IESG member, IETF Trustee 172 or IETF LLC Director. All signatories must have registered to attend 173 and have participated physically or remotely at least three out of 174 the previous five IETF meetings. 176 Each signature must include a full name, email address, and primary 177 company or organization affiliation. No more than two signatories 178 may have the same primary affiliation. 180 The IETF Secretariat is responsible for confirming that each 181 signatory is qualified. A valid petition must be signed by qualified 182 signatories as specified in this section. 184 3.2. Recall Petition Initiated by the Ombudsteam 186 [RFC7776] updates [RFC7437] by allowing the Ombudsteam submit a 187 recall petition on its own and without requiring signatories from the 188 community for it to qualify as a valid petition. This document does 189 not make any change to [RFC7776] or the Ombudsteam procedures and any 190 petition originating from the Ombudsteam shall be treated as a valid 191 petition. 193 4. Tradeoffs 195 Setting up a Recall Committee is a costly effort. The risk of 196 frivolous recall petitions is mitigated by setting a threshold for 197 qualified signatories. 199 5. Security Considerations 201 This document discusses IETF procedures. It raises no security 202 issues for the Internet. 204 The risks of permitting IESG or IAB members, or remote participants 205 from abusing process by initiating a recall seem minimal: they remain 206 ineligible to be members of the recall committee itself and the 207 community would presumably swiftly oppose such abuse. 209 6. IANA Considerations 211 This document does not require any IANA actions, 213 7. Acknowledgements 215 The authors would like to thank Adrian Farrel for some of the text in 216 Section 2.2, Section 3.1, and Section 3.2, and Brian Carpenter and 217 Spencer Dawkins for several discussions and comments that helped 218 stimulate this draft. 220 8. References 222 8.1. Normative References 224 [RFC7437] Kucherawy, M., Ed., "IAB, IESG, and IAOC Selection, 225 Confirmation, and Recall Process: Operation of the 226 Nominating and Recall Committees", BCP 10, RFC 7437, 227 DOI 10.17487/RFC7437, January 2015, 228 . 230 [RFC7776] Resnick, P. and A. Farrel, "IETF Anti-Harassment 231 Procedures", BCP 25, RFC 7776, DOI 10.17487/RFC7776, March 232 2016, . 234 8.2. Informative References 236 [RFC2026] Bradner, S., "The Internet Standards Process -- Revision 237 3", BCP 9, RFC 2026, DOI 10.17487/RFC2026, October 1996, 238 . 240 [RFC3777] Galvin, J., Ed., "IAB and IESG Selection, Confirmation, 241 and Recall Process: Operation of the Nominating and Recall 242 Committees", RFC 3777, DOI 10.17487/RFC3777, June 2004, 243 . 245 [RFC4371] Carpenter, B., Ed. and L. Lynch, Ed., "BCP 101 Update for 246 IPR Trust", BCP 101, RFC 4371, DOI 10.17487/RFC4371, 247 January 2006, . 249 Appendix A. Historical Note 251 RFC Editor: Please remove this appendix before publication. 253 The original recall procedure, as specified in RFC 2027, allowed a 254 single person, without any restrictions, to petition the Internet 255 Society President and initiate a recall any sitting IAB or IESG 256 member. That model was continued with successor documents through 257 RFC 2727. Because of concerns about the possibilities of frivolous 258 recall attempts and about what would effectively be denial of service 259 attacks on the IETF's ability to get work done, RFC 3777 increased 260 that to 20 signatories and introduced qualifications for the 261 signatories that were expressed as "nomcom eligibility". 263 Appendix B. Change Log 265 RFC Editor: Please remove this appendix before publication. 267 B.1. Changes from draft-klensin-recall-rev-00 (2005-11-11) to draft- 268 moonesamy-recall-rev-00 270 o Some discussion on the IETF list in 2005, and some followup 271 discussion offline, led to the conclusion that, just as IAB and 272 IESG members (and probably other Nomcom appointees) should allowed 273 to initiated recalls, sitting Nomcom members should not be 274 permitted to do so. New words and rationale have been added to 275 that effect. 277 o Changed update target from RFC 3777 to 7437. 279 B.2. Changes from version -00 (2019-03-23) to -01 281 o Added a new Tradeoffs Section with text about the risk of 282 frivolous recall petitions 284 o Added text in Section 3.2 to clarify that this document does not 285 change the procedures in RFC 7776 for any petition originating 286 from the Ombudsteam 288 o Added more text in Section 3.1 to replace the "qualified to be 289 voting members of a nominating committee" requirement in RFC 3777 291 B.3. Changes from version -01 (2019-03-31) to -02 293 o Editorial change to Section 2.2 295 Authors' Addresses 297 Subramanian Moonesamy 298 76, Ylang Ylang Avenue 299 Quatre Bornes 300 Mauritius 302 Email: sm+ietf@elandsys.com 304 John C. Klensin 305 1770 Massachusetts Ave, Suite 322 306 Cambridge, MA 02140 307 USA 309 Email: john-ietf@jck.com