idnits 2.17.1 draft-moonesamy-recall-rev-03.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 (November 9, 2019) is 1630 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 November 9, 2019 6 Expires: May 12, 2020 8 Revision of the Recall Initiation Model 9 draft-moonesamy-recall-rev-03 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 May 12, 2020. 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 B.4. Changes from version -02 (2019-05-15) to -03 . . . . . . 7 80 Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 82 1. Introduction 84 [RFC7437] defines the procedures for a Member Recall. The first step 85 of those procedures is to request a Member Recall by signed petition. 86 This document suggests that making IAB and IESG members ineligible to 87 initiate recalls was an undesirable side-effect and proposes to 88 remove it. It also proposes to allow remote participants to be 89 signatories of a recall petition under some circumstances thus 90 addressing a possible perception of unfairness towards those who 91 cannot or do not travel to attend physical meetings. Section 2 92 discusses some of the issues affecting that step and provides the 93 rationale. The updated text is in Section 3.1. 95 2. Rationale 97 2.1. Eligibility of IAB and IESG Members and other Nomcom Appointees 99 The procedures for initiating a recall specified in [RFC7437] 100 restrict signatories to those who are "nomcom qualified". Perhaps 101 inadvertently, this prohibits members of the IESG and IAB from 102 initiating these procedures. This is probably not in the best 103 interests of the community: if there is a problem within the IESG or 104 IAB, other members of those bodies are likely to be aware of it 105 before the IETF community. 107 Conversely, members of a sitting nomcom, since they are, by 108 definition, nomcom-eligible, are now permitted to initiate recalls. 109 For them to do so appears to be a singularly poor idea, especially in 110 principle. The nomcom should not be in a position to lead in 111 determining which positions are open, nor should its members be in a 112 position to initiate removal of someone whom they hope to replace. 113 In addition, any recall action initiated by sitting nomcom members, 114 especially if they presume to act on behalf of the community, would 115 inevitably raise suspicions that confidentiality had been 116 compromised. 118 Some of the IETF Trustees [RFC4371] and IETF LLC Directors are 119 appointed by NomCom. The procedures in [RFC7437] for a "recall 120 petition" specifies "any sitting" member instead of the members who 121 were appointed by Nomcom. There is a requirement to include a 122 justification for a "recall petition". There is also a requirement 123 for the member being recalled to be given an opportunity to present a 124 written statement and consult with third parties. There is an 125 assumption that those requirements are adequate for due process. As 126 such, Section 3.1 does not distinguish between NomCom appointees and 127 other appointing bodies. 129 2.2. Eligibility of Remote Participants 131 In 2017, the IESG set a requirement for the registration of remote 132 participants at IETF meetings. However, the procedures exclude those 133 IETF participants from making a request for a Member Recall by signed 134 petition. 136 According to [RFC3777], "Volunteers are expected to be familiar with 137 the IETF processes and procedures, which are readily learned by 138 active participation in a working group and especially by serving as 139 a document editor or working group chair." There is also a "no more 140 than two signatories may have the same primary affiliation" 141 restriction. Restricting signatories to those who are "nomcom 142 qualified" may appear to disenfranchise active remote participants 143 who lack the travel resources to attend physical meetings (such as 144 those who reside in emerging countries) because they are unable to 145 use a recall petition to seek redress. 147 The "nomcom qualified" requirement for a recall petition is contrary 148 to the spirit and one of the goals of the Internet Standards Process 149 [RFC2026] about procedures which are intended to be fair. 151 2.3. Number of Signatures Required 153 [RFC7437] requires at least 20 signatories for a recall petition with 154 no more than two of the signatories having the same primary 155 affiliation. That sets a very high barrier for a recall petition 156 even though the recall petition requires a, justification, an 157 investigation by a Recall Committee and a 3/4 majority of the members 158 of the Recall Committee who vote on the recall decision. This 159 document also proposes to decrease the number of signatures required 160 to avoid making it impractical to invoke the first step of the recall 161 procedures. 163 3. Recall Petition 165 3.1. Recall Petition Initiated by the Community 167 The first four paragraphs of Section 7.1 of [RFC7437] are replaced by 168 the following: 170 At any time, at least 10 members of the IETF community, may request 171 by signed petition (email is acceptable) to the Internet Society 172 President the recall of any sitting IAB or IESG member, IETF Trustee 173 or IETF LLC Director. All signatories must have registered to attend 174 and have participated physically or remotely at least three out of 175 the previous five IETF meetings. 177 Each signature must include a full name, email address, and primary 178 company or organization affiliation. No more than two signatories 179 may have the same primary affiliation. 181 The IETF Secretariat is responsible for confirming that each 182 signatory is qualified. A valid petition must be signed by qualified 183 signatories as specified in this section. 185 3.2. Recall Petition Initiated by the Ombudsteam 187 [RFC7776] updates [RFC7437] by allowing the Ombudsteam submit a 188 recall petition on its own and without requiring signatories from the 189 community for it to qualify as a valid petition. This document does 190 not make any change to [RFC7776] or the Ombudsteam procedures and any 191 petition originating from the Ombudsteam shall be treated as a valid 192 petition. 194 4. Tradeoffs 196 Setting up a Recall Committee is a costly effort. The risk of 197 frivolous recall petitions is mitigated by setting a threshold for 198 qualified signatories. 200 5. Security Considerations 202 This document discusses IETF procedures. It raises no security 203 issues for the Internet. 205 The risks of permitting IESG or IAB members, or remote participants 206 from abusing process by initiating a recall seem minimal: they remain 207 ineligible to be members of the recall committee itself and the 208 community would presumably swiftly oppose such abuse. 210 6. IANA Considerations 212 This document does not require any IANA actions, 214 7. Acknowledgements 216 The authors would like to thank Adrian Farrel for some of the text in 217 Section 2.2, Section 3.1, and Section 3.2, and Brian Carpenter and 218 Spencer Dawkins for several discussions and comments that helped 219 stimulate this draft. 221 8. References 223 8.1. Normative References 225 [RFC7437] Kucherawy, M., Ed., "IAB, IESG, and IAOC Selection, 226 Confirmation, and Recall Process: Operation of the 227 Nominating and Recall Committees", BCP 10, RFC 7437, 228 DOI 10.17487/RFC7437, January 2015, 229 . 231 [RFC7776] Resnick, P. and A. Farrel, "IETF Anti-Harassment 232 Procedures", BCP 25, RFC 7776, DOI 10.17487/RFC7776, March 233 2016, . 235 8.2. Informative References 237 [RFC2026] Bradner, S., "The Internet Standards Process -- Revision 238 3", BCP 9, RFC 2026, DOI 10.17487/RFC2026, October 1996, 239 . 241 [RFC3777] Galvin, J., Ed., "IAB and IESG Selection, Confirmation, 242 and Recall Process: Operation of the Nominating and Recall 243 Committees", RFC 3777, DOI 10.17487/RFC3777, June 2004, 244 . 246 [RFC4371] Carpenter, B., Ed. and L. Lynch, Ed., "BCP 101 Update for 247 IPR Trust", BCP 101, RFC 4371, DOI 10.17487/RFC4371, 248 January 2006, . 250 Appendix A. Historical Note 252 RFC Editor: Please remove this appendix before publication. 254 The original recall procedure, as specified in RFC 2027, allowed a 255 single person, without any restrictions, to petition the Internet 256 Society President and initiate a recall any sitting IAB or IESG 257 member. That model was continued with successor documents through 258 RFC 2727. Because of concerns about the possibilities of frivolous 259 recall attempts and about what would effectively be denial of service 260 attacks on the IETF's ability to get work done, RFC 3777 increased 261 that to 20 signatories and introduced qualifications for the 262 signatories that were expressed as "nomcom eligibility". 264 Appendix B. Change Log 266 RFC Editor: Please remove this appendix before publication. 268 B.1. Changes from draft-klensin-recall-rev-00 (2005-11-11) to draft- 269 moonesamy-recall-rev-00 271 o Some discussion on the IETF list in 2005, and some followup 272 discussion offline, led to the conclusion that, just as IAB and 273 IESG members (and probably other Nomcom appointees) should allowed 274 to initiated recalls, sitting Nomcom members should not be 275 permitted to do so. New words and rationale have been added to 276 that effect. 278 o Changed update target from RFC 3777 to 7437. 280 B.2. Changes from version -00 (2019-03-23) to -01 282 o Added a new Tradeoffs Section with text about the risk of 283 frivolous recall petitions 285 o Added text in Section 3.2 to clarify that this document does not 286 change the procedures in RFC 7776 for any petition originating 287 from the Ombudsteam 289 o Added more text in Section 3.1 to replace the "qualified to be 290 voting members of a nominating committee" requirement in RFC 3777 292 B.3. Changes from version -01 (2019-03-31) to -02 294 o Editorial change to Section 2.2 296 B.4. Changes from version -02 (2019-05-15) to -03 298 o New version submitted due to expiration of draft. 300 Authors' Addresses 302 Subramanian Moonesamy 303 76, Ylang Ylang Avenue 304 Quatre Bornes 305 Mauritius 307 Email: sm+ietf@elandsys.com 309 John C. Klensin 310 1770 Massachusetts Ave, Suite 322 311 Cambridge, MA 02140 312 USA 314 Email: john-ietf@jck.com