[Search] [txt|xml|pdfized|bibtex] [Tracker] [Email] [Nits]
Versions: 00                                                            
Network Working Group                                        E. Rescorla
Internet-Draft                                                   Mozilla
Intended status: Informational                                M. StJohns
Expires: November 17, 2019                                    Consultant
                                                            May 16, 2019

             Updated Recall Procedures for IETF Leadership


   This document proposes a new set of recall procedures for members of
   the IESG and IAB.  Instead of a revised nomcom process, these
   procedures are based on the body expelling their own members.

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 17, 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
   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.

Rescorla & StJohns      Expires November 17, 2019               [Page 1]

Internet-Draft                 New Recall                       May 2019

Table of Contents

   1.  Introduction  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   2
   2.  Conventions and Definitions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
   3.  Expulsion Procedure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
   4.  Effectiveness Date  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
   5.  Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
   6.  IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
   7.  Normative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
   Authors' Addresses  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5

1.  Introduction

   Section 7 of [RFC7437] describes a recall procedure for IAB and IESG
   members.  This procedure involves a petition from 20 nomcom-eligible
   community members followed by the formation of a recall committee
   using procedures similar to those of the nomcom.  This procedure has
   never been executed, although in at least one case the petition phase
   got fairly far before the relevant member resigned.

   One might draw a number of conclusions here, including:

   o  There is very little need for any kind of recall, except in the
      most exceptional circumstances.

   o  The recall system is so unwieldy that it is undeployable even in
      the most egregious cases.

   This document takes the position that while recalls should be
   relatively rare, some mechanism is needed, but that the current
   mechanism is not well-constructed, both because it is hard to
   initiate and because it is slow (partly by design), with the result
   that it often seems easier to just wait for the next nomcom cycle.
   In addition, because of the stochastic nature of the nomcom, it is a
   potential source of abuse by those wishing to relitigate the past

   This document proposes an alternate structure which is designed to
   deal with just egregious cases (e.g., total member checkout, major
   misconduct) but is also faster because it doesn't involve spinning up
   the nomcom machinery (twice, once to recall and once to replace).  In
   this structure, the IAB/IESG would vote to expel the offending member
   with consent from the other body.  The rationale here is that the
   body themselves is in the best position to know when a member really
   needs to be removed.

Rescorla & StJohns      Expires November 17, 2019               [Page 2]

Internet-Draft                 New Recall                       May 2019

   The intent is that this be an alternative to the existing recall
   procedure, thus preserving a community mechanism for removing

2.  Conventions and Definitions

   The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
   "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in BCP
   14 [RFC2119] [RFC8174] when, and only when, they appear in all
   capitals, as shown here.

3.  Expulsion Procedure

   In this model, any formal member of either the IAB or the IESG, with
   the exception of the IETF chair, may be expelled by that body.
   Specifically, for the IESG, this means all area directors other than
   the IETF chair and for the IAB this means all IAB members other than
   the IETF chair, liaisons, and ex officio members.

   The body MAY use any procedures of its choice to debate the issue,
   but the final vote MUST be by a 2/3 majority of the formal members
   other than the affected member.  Prior to that vote, the member MUST
   be notified and have an opportunity to provide a statement to be
   considered by the voting members.

   Members MAY appeal their expulsion to the body which would ordinarily
   confirm nomcom appointments (the IAB for IESG members and the ISOC
   Board of Trustees for IAB members).  This appeal MUST be filed within
   7 days or the expulsion becomes effective.

   In case of an appeal, the body proposing the expulsion shall send a
   note to the confirming body explaining its reasons for the expulsion.
   The member being proposed for expulsion shall have access to that
   statement and shall be allowed to submit a statement explaining why
   the expulsion should not be sustained.  The member shall have 3
   business days after receipt of the explusion statement to submit
   their statement.

   The confirming body shall complete their deliberations within one
   calendar week of receiving the expulsion statement and response.  If
   the confirming body does not vote to confirm the expulsion by a 2/3
   majority by the end of this deadline, the expulsion shall not be

   The contents of the statement on the reasons for expulsion shall be
   held confidential by both bodies.  However, the member being proposed

Rescorla & StJohns      Expires November 17, 2019               [Page 3]

Internet-Draft                 New Recall                       May 2019

   for expulsion in their sole discretion, MAY make their statement

   Deliberations and votes by both bodies - including the fact that
   expulsion is being considered - shall be private (and among only the
   members voting) and only the fact of a successful vote yea shall be
   reported publicly.  The number of votes for or against shall not be
   reported.  If at any time the member resigns from the position prior
   to the completion of an appeal, the fact of the expulsion process
   shall not be reported.

   Upon either the expiration of the appeal period or an affirmative
   vote by the confirming body, the expulsion takes effect immediately.
   At this point, their seat is treated as a mid-term vacancy and
   handled according to Section 3.5 of [RFC7437].

   If an expulsion vote is taken and fails and/or an expulsion is not
   sustained by the confirming body, no expulsion of that member may be
   proposed for 6 months after the initiation of the proceedings.

   The Chair of the IETF may not be removed by expulsion.

4.  Effectiveness Date

   This process applies to members selected by Nomcoms after the
   publication date of this document.

5.  Security Considerations

   This document introduces a new mechanism for removing IAB and IESG
   members, so is a potential way to suppress existing views.
   Supermajority requirements and the possibility of appeal limits the
   impact of this.

6.  IANA Considerations

   This document has no IANA actions.

7.  Normative References

   [RFC2119]  Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
              Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997,

Rescorla & StJohns      Expires November 17, 2019               [Page 4]

Internet-Draft                 New Recall                       May 2019

   [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,

   [RFC8174]  Leiba, B., "Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC
              2119 Key Words", BCP 14, RFC 8174, DOI 10.17487/RFC8174,
              May 2017, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8174>.

Authors' Addresses

   Eric Rescorla

   Email: ekr@rtfm.com

   Michael StJohns

   Email: mstjohns@comcast.net

Rescorla & StJohns      Expires November 17, 2019               [Page 5]