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
draft-rescorla-istar-recall-00
Abstract
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
nomcom.
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
members.
2. Conventions and Definitions
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and
"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
sustained.
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
public.
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,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>.
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,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7437>.
[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
Mozilla
Email: ekr@rtfm.com
Michael StJohns
Consultant
Email: mstjohns@comcast.net
Rescorla & StJohns Expires November 17, 2019 [Page 5]