[Docs] [txt|pdf|xml|html] [Tracker] [Email] [Diff1] [Diff2] [Nits]

Versions: (draft-klensin-recall-rev) 00 01 02

Network Working Group                                       S. Moonesamy
Internet-Draft
Updates: 7437 (if approved)                                   J. Klensin
Intended status: Best Current Practice                      May 15, 2019
Expires: November 16, 2019


                Revision of the Recall Initiation Model
                     draft-moonesamy-recall-rev-02

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 November 16, 2019.

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 November 16, 2019               [Page 1]


Internet-Draft               Recall Revision                    May 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
   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 November 16, 2019               [Page 2]


Internet-Draft               Recall Revision                    May 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 November 16, 2019               [Page 3]


Internet-Draft               Recall Revision                    May 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 November 16, 2019               [Page 4]


Internet-Draft               Recall Revision                    May 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 November 16, 2019               [Page 5]


Internet-Draft               Recall Revision                    May 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 November 16, 2019               [Page 6]


Internet-Draft               Recall Revision                    May 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

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 November 16, 2019               [Page 7]


Html markup produced by rfcmarkup 1.129c, available from https://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcmarkup/