IETF 98 Plenary Minutes 1. Welcome Jari Arkko: Topics: - Welcome - Host Presentation (Camarillo) - Updates on hot topics (brief/no reports) - Tech plenary: Protocols and human rights(Howard, ten Oever, Clark) - Thank outgoing IAB, IAOC, IESG members - IAB Open Mic - IAOC Open Mic - IESG Open Mic 2. Host presentation (Gonzalo Camarillo) Gonzalo Camarillo: Topics: - Host IETF 98 - Global IETF Host Montreal & Toronto - Relevance of the IETF: - Global community partners/customers etc - Governance - IASA 2.0 - Important - Hackathon - Open source - 5G - radio - Core network -> IMS - IOT - Service to Slice Bindings -> very relevant to IETF - Traffic engineering - Deterministic networking - How can security be evolved to 5 G Jari Arkko: Thanks to Ericsson for their support. - applause 3. Updates IETF-level issues (Arkko) Jari Arkko: - Meeting participants statistics (how many/ where from/ new) - 1086 people on site / from 57 countries / 183 first time attendees -Question from jabber: how many remote participants? - Reply from jabber scribe: 288 remote participant Jari Arkko: - Professional behavior -> remember to be nice! - IETF Code of Conduct - IESG anti-harassment policy - Team that can help is the Ombudsteam, Allison Mankin, Linda Klieforth, and Pete Resnick - Notable Process Updates: - wg -> github-> WUGH discussion - wg new meeting format -> very interactive - IASA 2.0 -> doing well-> new challenges -> successful meeting/ workshops/new mailing list -> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/iasa20 - announcement of Marcia Beaulieu of the IETF Secretariat is retiring - Sad news -> Andrea Bittau, Sharon Boeyen in Memoriam Administrative topics (Daigle, Pelletier) Ray Pelletier: OPERATIONS – IAD - Thanks to Chicago Global Host Ericsson - Thanks to Sponsors: Akamai, cira, cableLabs - Thanks to HUAWEI, Comcast, AT&T - Thanks to Hackathon Sponsors: Ericsson & Mozilla, - Sponsorship POC -> Howard Baggott. - Acknowledgements - Code Sprint - NOC Team - NOC Volunteers - Linespeed Team - Meetecho Team - Thursday Tech Talk -> John Mattsson - Real Deal on Cellular Security Leslie Daigle: IAOC Report - Thanks to departing IAOC members, Bensons Schliesser; Andrew Sullivan, and Jari Arkko - Welcome new members; Kaveh Ranjbar, Ted Hardie, and Alissa Cooper - IAOC chair election: Leslie Daigle will continue to serve as chair - IAOC detailed report - Meeting and where to have them - IETF 102 in San Francisco or not is the current discussion. - Financial result -> Positive Results for Expenses, but not Income. Income fell short. See https://iaoc.ietf.org/documents/IETF-98-IAOC-Report-Long-Form.pdf NomCom report and requests (Lynch, Yee) Lucy Lynch: - Nominating community - Primary tasks completed - Areas of weakness for discussion with community - Issue: small leadership pools - Issue: Employer support for participation - Issue: Clear & distinct position descriptions - RFC Updates may be need - IESG is in a three-AD pattern, document process for filling vacancies - request from community: check whether you are eligible https://www.ietf.org/registration/nomcom.py - It is important to update your profile in datatracker. - Provide feedback on any and all nominees. - Welcome Peter Yee, NomCom Chair 2017-2018 IRTF changeover (Mankin) Allison Mankin: - Chair Transition -> Lars Eggert handed off the Chair Dot - ANRW - Joint workshop ACM/ISOC/IRTF deadline 03 April 2017 - Applied Networking Prize - two awardees talked in IRTFOPEN meeting and again in Routing Area Meeting Postel Award announcement (Brown) Brown: - Jonathan B. Postel Service Award -> pioneer of IETF - Jonathan B. Service Award Past Honorees - Nomination open this week March 26, 2017 - May 3, 2017 - 25 under 25 nominations open until May 31, 2017 Welcome to IETF 99 (Filip) Ondrej Filip: - invitation to Prague - 2 hosts -> NBCUniversal Comcast, and cz.nic - Social event -> close to the bridge - museum of Franz Kafka and restaurant - Kafka -> Czech humor - Vaclac Havel great believer in human rights & freedom (story about President Havel and short trousers) - Charles IV - made Prague center of medieval Europe (Charles Bridge, Charles University, and the Hunger Wall) - Hunger Wall - people built the wall for no purpose but to get fed. - Official names of the country are Czech Republic or Czechia - Now, there is a no smoking ban in restaurant, no fireworks allowed - public transport for free for IETF - pick up ticket with badge 4. IAB Technical plenary: Can Internet Protocols Affect Human Rights? (Howard, ten Oever, Clark) Lee Howard (introduction): What is the relationship between Internet Protocols and Human Rights? Niels ten Oever is the head of digital for article 19, and co-chair for the HRPC research group. Dave Clark is head of Computer Science Artificial Intelligence Lab (CSAIL) at MIT. Niels ten Oever: Main points - What is a protocol? A system of rules. - Internet protocols affect human rights Quick Historical tour 1215, Magna Carta - 1689, Bill of Rights - 1776, US Declaration of Independence - 1789, US Bill of Rights 1947 -> First document of human rights -> Universal Declaration of human rights. Not legal, but aspirational - It is not just countries that impact human rights. The UN Global Compact - on Corporate Social Responsibility - Can Internet protocols affect human rights? - Difference between document of standard & implementation of protocol - 3 basics: protect rights/ respect rights / remedy in cases rights are breached - To know & to show what is human rights - Rights & technology -> how technology changes the world - UN Special Council 2012 - Rights protected offline must also be protected online -> how does it relate to internet? - Not that easy. Question how to do this. - We see the Internet as a huge engine for freedom of expression. But there are downsides in the case of pervasive surveillance. - Trying to map this in the HRPC RG. - RFC 3935 a mission statement for the IETF says the internet isn’t value neutral & neither is the IETF - has little to do with the technology that is possible, but instead has to do with the technology we choose to create. - Ongoing interest from other actors to use protocols as a means of control. If we don't think about, it others will. tech > policy ? or policy > tech ? - BCP 72/ RFC 6973/ RFC7258/ RFC 7624 We have these to - What about other rights? Freedom of expression, association, etc.? - Know & show then document then setting the standards - Other groups thinking about human rights are "IEEE P7000 Model Process for Addressing Ethical Concerns During System Design," and "ISO 26000 Social Responsibility." - role & influence in complex landscape/ stack / ecosystem. We need to take responsibility. - Technology is neither good nor bad; nor is it neutral - draft-irtf-hrpc-research-11 is going to the IRSG soon. Is it time to bring this discussion to the IETF? David Clark: I've read the draft Niels talks about, I recommend reading it. If you think it was abstract, there are concrete examples to bring it clear. Human Rights in the balance - 2015 I wrote a paper with some others. "Tussle in Cyberspace: Defining Tomorrow's Internet" Managing tussle -> Architecture & standard can shape tussle, but cannot prevent it - The tussle in real world is over by the time concrete is poured, but that is not true in cyberspace, the tussle is ongoing. We must manage it. - Design FOR tussle, for variation in outcome. - Design the playing field, not the outcome of the game. - Our work is NOT value-neutral, strongly believe in the view points of the "values in design" movement. - Human rights -> rights are not absolute UDHR Article 29, which states basically local law trumps human rights. - Example from past; CALEA, The IETF was invited to develop standards for lawful intercept (wiretap) in the context of the US Communications Assistance for Law Enforcement Act (CALEA). The IETF declined see: RFC 2804 from 2000 and RFC 1984 called the "Raven" process. a policymaker asked the question did the IETF go read the law? Clause 107(a)(2) of CALEA, "a telecommunications carrier shall be found in compliance... if the carrier... is in compliance with a publicly available technical requirements or standards..." By declining, the IETF left the decision to others. - 3GPP (SA 3 WG) example - the WG will determine the security and privacy requirements for 3GPP systems, but doesn't say how. They acknowledge tussle. There is nothing about a foundation defining security and privacy. - Challenge: Human rights in the balance. The harder challenge - do we design for a preferred outcome, or incorporate into our design a tolerance for a range of outcomes some we may not prefer? Are we clever enough to tilt the playing field. Thank you. Lee Howard: Invite to the discussion. Comments and Questions. Discussion and Questions: 1. Scott Bradner: We did what you suggest. We encourage those who had technology for wire tapping to publish it as RFC, not as standard track, to see what the playing field looks like. And they could be examined for flaws. We got a few. This is part of 2804 as well. It was not an easy discussion. There are people who said it is a moral sin that governments wiretap, and also people who say that it’s a government responsibility to do so. It was a political discussion masquerading as technology. 2. Mirja Kühlewind: I think I should read the HRPC document. Can you give some example what guidelines are in this document? 2a. Niels ten Oever: Yes. One thing, we have more than we wanted. We started a rogue test with 3 actual protocols and see what would be useful to use, because we have many more guidelines. To make it useful we need a kind of the decision tree. There is no such thing as automating this process, because it also very dependent on context. We cannot say "this is how it is going to go." We cannot predict how protocols are going work and how they interact together. But there are things we can think about like will this protocol make censorship harder or easier on what level will it be transparent, what’s its impact on privacy, internationalization, anonymity, and also accessibility, localization, decentralization. But that’s not all, this isn't an exhaustive list. Now we continue the new draft about freedom of association. We think that using DDOS as kind of political speech is not a good thing. It harms the infrastructure, and it limits freedom of speech for others. These are things we are thinking about. We currently have 19 considerations and we will be happy to see, does it make sense, do we need more or less, or is there another model. 2b. Mirja Kühlewind: Did you find anything in these example protocols that was missed in the first place and has now been added? 2c. Niels ten Oever: Two testers found something and changes have been made. 3. Paul Hoffman: For Dave, you asked whether we can interfere with this, the better question is could we do it well? A lot of people here have no political degree. I have a political science degree from MIT, I know how hard it is and how easy it is to get it wrong. Before we say yes, let’s think wether we’re a good group to do this. 3a. David Clark: I fully agree with you about difficulty to do this. The real point that it does required a conversation among people with different skills. It is important in this space to listen the people how bring the different perspectives. Social, legal, moral, ethical perspectives. Maybe we are not the right group of people to do this, but we should try to be the part of this conversation. If we had this conversation, we should find out which group of people to invite here. The NSF sponsored a program which discussed the state of the internet in 15, 20 years. To these meetings we invited social scientists to get a critique what we were doing. Having those perspective in the room is fascinating. The question is: Who are the people in the room, how do we do this conversation? These are really important questions I don't mean to minimize at all. 3b. Niels ten Oever: There are other people such as lawyers, and legislators, the public opinion and the market and they are thinking about ethics. This does not mean we should not. We can not outsource ethics to others and hope that they take care of it. But it also means, we are not going to replace them. We should just, within our little limit, take our responsibility. 3c. Paul Hoffman: Work with them is what you are saying. 3d. Niels ten Oever: Yes. 4. Pete Resnick: Looking that what we did with pervasive monitoring, it was a nice trick. We reduce the problem to a engineering problem. We said we don’t want to design protocol that allowed for pervasive monitoring, because it reduces to an attack. It’s the just another security hole and it’s impossible to tell the difference between so called “good monitoring” and the kind that bad people would do. I wonder if that is a good path for an organization like ours that always tries to reduce this to an “engineering problem”. There is an important ethical principle, but we don’t want that the entire engineering organization to constantly wrestle with ethical problems. 5. Andrew Sullivan: In both of research group draft and the tussle paper there is a question about whether the value of technology itself is an independent value or whether it’s purely instrumental. Does it have it’s own logic? We shape our tools and than after our tools shape us. We should try to think about of a value of the network itself. It seems that it has a kind of independent value. I wonder if there is a room for that or it’s just a ridiculous idea. 5a. David Clark: Someone told me, there is so much bad stuff happening on the internet. Do you think it was worth doing? And that tells you how some people thinking about it. And I was deeply distressed. But he wasn’t joking. Do you think it’s worth doing? Do you thin we may have been better off if we had never done it? Fact is that somebody wanted to address this question. But it definitely means, that question you asking is probably part of what we have to address. 5b. Niels ten Oever: I think it’s trying to deduct what values the system has. I’m not sure, that might be a long way around, to simply asking what our values are. Because if you are saying, that our values are embedded in the network, then the network shapes us, then we can say that the internet is a techno-social ordering of reality. It’s very hard to think of it as an independent entity. The approach to go through network values. I’m not sure how it can help us to solve this problem, but I’m happy to give it more. 5c. David Clark: If you go back to the very early days then we didn’t know what we doing at all. There were 3 short papers, called End-to-End arguments. That paper has been cited as a foundation of argument in favor of all kind of things, network neutrality and openness and so forth. And I was a strict constructionist about that paper. It’s about building a system that works. There is a very simple correctness principle: Since the Network doesn’t know what the semantics of the application is, it has to be validated by the code that knows that is running on the end nodes. And there is not anything in the paper about openness, about values. We often design things we are not able to articulate how this might play in the large space. I’m uncomfortable when people read more into the paper than it actually says. Maybe we would live better now, I think we should try to be better now, that’s the point of the values in design. It’s just to say, try to do this, by the way we have some teaching practices, there are help you learn how to do it. But I certainly think that the network we built at the time can do express some values, but we could not properly articulated at the time. 6. Harald Alvestrand: We will tilt the playing field. We have no choice. So the only choice we can have is to try to predict which direction the playing field will tilt once we jump around around it. We will often be wrong, but the only choice we have is whether we try or not try. We have the law of unintended consequences. There is a regulation that says: Radio should not transmit outside certain boundaries, which the FCC turned into the rule saying that WiFi access points need to be protected against being set to parameters outside of what is allowed in the country they are sold in. Which manufacturers made into: Thou shall not hack your access point. This was bad for a number of things including security and the freedom to tinker. And a freedom to repair. We always have an unintended consequences of our actions, but if we try to tilt the board in that direction we want, at least we have tried. 7. Phillip Hallam-Baker: I was one of the participants in the crypto wars One of the thing I realized was: we spend 10 year designing systems not to be secure, but to to defeat Louis III. And we were continuing with this design goal long after Louis III wasn’t even in office. And what we ended up with in many cases is security specification that are unusable and don’t work for people. Don't work for people who can’t configure Linux, don’t work for 95% of technically astute people. I think that we’ve got to be very careful that we have the needs of the real users in view. And we not using this as excuse to go on our own ego trips, which is very easy. If we are serious about this and about liberation technologies, there are people who work on them. And if people come to the mic in a WG session and say this is going to have some affect dissidents. Have you actually talked to communities that work with dissidents, that provide technology for dissidents. I have. And I would like other people to do that, because it’s only if you look at it at from that point of view that you suddenly realize that just throwing encryption everywhere doesn’t solve the problems. We have to come up with a set of application-layer crypto that anybody can use. We just had a failure Email security that tipped an election. And a failure was that a certain grandmother, nearing 70, was not able to use the end-to-end encryption. And that’s because we blew it here. If we have produced a decent, usable end-to-end encryption stack, maybe the result would have been different. 8. Daniel Kahn Gillmor: I'm from the American Civil Liberties Union, and I wanted to reinforce what Harald Alvestrand said and to push back a little on what Paul Hoffman and Pete Resnick said. We are building incredibly important tools here. They may not be the best tools. I’m sure everybody has an idea about things in IETF that didn’t end up technically or perhaps ethically as we wanted it. But what we building here are tools is everyone in the world is ending up using. While it would be nice to say: Let not engineers think about ethics all the time. It might be nice to say: we might not tilt the playing field in the right direction. We might not be clever enough, lets just step back. The fact is we are building the playing field today. I appreciate that we are having this discussion here, because it is critically important that engineers, like all of us in this room, are thinking ethically all the time about what the consequences are. You might not have enough information, if you don't you should reach out to try to find this information. This is the ethical responsibility of our profession. And I’m really happy to hear that we are having this discussion and acknowledge that we are playing a role and that people can exercise their rights that they expect to have on the internet today and the day after tomorrow. Thank you. 9. Sue Hares: The roman roads enabled the roman pacts. And the human rights defined by the oligarchies of Rome, that is, that the Roman citizens had specific rights, when the rest of the world had slavery. Are you saying that the internet, which is a virtual highway, similar to the roman roads that connected the known western world at the time, should be defined by this virtual society, the IETF as an internet virtual technology? Is this one group defining for the rest of the world? Do you feel that we have the rights to do that? I’m questioning the basic premise here. 9a. Niels ten Oever: I don’t think I understand you question. Because I don’t think that we should define human rights here. I’m not saying that we should go out and do something to people. But applied to our work we should take responsibility. 9b. Sue Hares: We have a bit of history here. You are referencing a set of rules from the western society that you are engaging in. I point to another point in history, where another group felt they had the premise of truth. I.e. the Roman oligarchy, and at that point they defined a definition of citizenship for Rome and slavery for the rest of the world. I’m not saying that freedom is wrong, I’m just saying that we should take a good look at our premise. The basis of it is based on some assumptions that may or may not be correct. You are defining rights which are going above all other things. I’m not saying what’s right or what’s wrong. I’m just pointing to two situations which are similar. Thank you. 9c. David Clark: There is no doubt if you are cynic about the universal declaration of human rights, and I spoke a number of people about it, that it reflects the sort of western centric conception of what rights might be, and a lot of country signed it, under the assumption that it’s just a piece of paper. And, in my opinion, how could you possibly think about it any other way. You are absolutely right, there is no reason to think that if you talk to people from different cultural backgrounds and different historical traditions that they would buy into it with the same fervor you might. That is something you really need to be sensitive to. What is the place of all cultural relativism in the small space. If you look at the internet there is a fascinating tension between what it does on one layer and what it does on another layer. We absolutely aspired, and I don’t know if this is a Western-centric goal or not, the goal of generality. We wanted to be able to support a wide variety of applications. To a certain extend that was because we tried to connect general purpose computers, so the network should be general purpose. From that perspective, if it turns out that in some parts of the world, the internet experience is shaped by different applications that people choose to use, it’s hard to see that we have any complaint. If there are parts of the world that prohibit certain behavior, we have to think about wether we want to push back against it or accept it. Part of my advocacy for tussle is basically that these considerations need to be balanced. I don’t think that a naive articulation of the rights in the universal declaration of human rights is necessarily the right balance. That only makes the problem harder. 9d. Susan Hares: Thank you Dr. Clark, that is exactly my point. The balance is important. 10. Mike Bishop: One of the previous people was questioning, whether we are the right people to answer this question. An I heard someone behind me say: Who else? I don’t know how many of us are aware that the IEEE now has an encrypted traffic inspection WG. That is considering adopting, or has adopted, a protocol called multi context TLS that allows a negotiated third party to look into a TLS connection. I personally think that it is exceptionally dangerous that they are doing such a thing without the input of the TLS experts of the IETF. And at the same time, whenever somebody raises some of the arguable use cases for anybody to see into a TLS connection, the immediate response is see RFC 2804, we don’t do wiretapping. I did look into RFC2804 and the definition of wiretapping is that neither party knows that it is happening. One of the requirements of the multi context TLS is that the parties are aware of what is happening and what the third party is. I don’t think that the gulf is that wide from what we put in our RFCs, but there is certainly a gulf between attitudes. And if we don’t at least talk about it, we are not going to get anywhere. 11. Nalini Elkins: I want to add to Mike Bishop. There are two things I’ve really been thinking about. The first and let me preface this by saying that freedom speech is an extremely important thing to me and I’ve been quite often to be known as a political dissident. I will come from that perspective. First do we live in a post privacy world? What is our expectations of privacy with Facebook, Foursquare, etc. and what they know about us. Do we have a right to that expectation (of privacy), especially for someone who wishes to engage in dissident political speech? Number two: which is connected - When will the sheriff come to town? If we consider that the Internet is the wild wild west, which in many ways it is. One of the organizational forces for the internet is the IETF. And I very much agree with Dan Gillmor and others, that there need to be a lot of values. Having said that, will there be a precipitating event such that someone, law enforcement, legislation, feels that this is their responsibility. Coming in with their overreach and lack of understanding that will happen about what protocols are and what they can do. And I understand that decisions were made before, for the IETF not to be involved in these kind of things. Or even a discussion of balance, as to whether there are legitimate needs for inspection of traffic, or for law enforcement. For example, I could say if my child is in danger, you can look in whatever traffic you want. It is my child. I just wonder if that’s a kind of conversation we want to have. If I even bring up something like that. People just say, that is no to discussion want to have at IETF. 12. Georg Mayer: I have to fortunate role of been the liaison person between 3GPP and IETF, on the 3GPP side. Thank you for bashing SA3LI. I don’t participate in that group. I just want to say a few thing on that. First of all, 3GPP set up in a very different way than here, this is community of individuals, 3GPP is set up by organizational partners, which are practically the national standards bodies. You can’t expect the same sort of discussions even being possible in such a group. But I agree we don’t discuss ethics or anything like that. What we do is, we adopt an enormous amount of IETF work and we had long discussions on specific IETF rules and ways of doing protocols. What we demand from the protocols. But the results always bring the world forward. I think if you don’t have this discussion here, then others will not have it. This is a good place for having discussion of human rights, on how we want to shape technology in an ethical way. And I think it’s necessary to do it here. It will be in one way or another adopted by the other communities and you will spread this like a virus to others. I don’t see a reason, why it shouldn’t be discuss here. 13. Matt Mathis: I think we are already playing on very tilted playing field, that is tilted to our severe disadvantage. Mostly because the dominant behavior today is determined by bugs. Either oversights in applications or outright in the end system. We have no way retiring buggy systems and the response to the collateral damage from these bugs is actually going to force authorities to do things we don’t want them to and would not be necessary if the bugs were fixed. I really think that fixing buggy systems and removing them from the internet is a crucial policy problem that we need to address. It sounds like we also reached a point where we need think about whether RFC2804 needs to be nuanced some and reopened. 14. Kerry Lynn: Phillip referenced the recent election in the states. I’m not sure that I heard the internet for another election like they had this time. From hacked emails, fake news, disinformation to dissuade people from voting. This is the IETF and we don’t talk about applications here. Im curious to know wether you have any evidence of any other groups considering this from a network application perspective, such as social media. Do we have the technology or the ability to detected how the internet is tilting the playing field. 14a. David Clark: I asked the same question to one friend of mine. Who speaks for the application designers and the answer was Google. I actually think we made a mistake in the very early days of the design of the Internet. We basically stayed away from the applications, because we knew that we have no control over the designers. Why would they listen to us? So we didn’t bother to speak to them. And I actually think may be that was a mistake. We can actually help them, by not telling them what to do, but by giving them application design patterns. We could have a group of people who’s goal to look at how application have been built and learn from them and come up with the best practices even if we know we can’t force that on people, they might just listen to us. We probably have more coherence and more cohesion than any other group that deals with application. If that’s not true, we really ought to work with them. 14b. Niels ten Oever: It always easy to look other problems somewhere else and not look at your own problem. There are a lot of issue in the application layer. But in our work, there are still a lot of problems to be solved. This is relevant for political situations in many countries around the world. Relevant to Internet shutdowns in Cameroon, relevant to eavesdropping other countries. I think we realize now the Internet is mediating rights in all parts over the world. We should response to see how we can make the Internet a rights enabling network all over the world. As a global community. 15. Bron Gondwana We just talking about tilting playing fields and unintended consequences. When Cars got better security systems, that didn’t stop cars from being stolen, people started carjacking, and the injury rates and death rates of car owners started to go up. The people we trying to protect against with security policies have real world power to enforce things. If we block out people with real power, they will find a way around it. And thats something we need to consider when we tilt the playing filed in one direction. Who else is going to be damaged by protecting the ones in the ones we are protecting. 16. Lee Howard: That sounds like a tussle. I appreciate the conversation we have had today. The conversation continues in HRPC research group. Thank you speakers. 5. Thank outgoing IESG, IAB, and IAOC members Ted Hardie: The IAB thanks Lars Eggert, Ralph Droms, Russ Housley, Andrew Sullivan, and Dave Thaler for their years of service to the community on the IAB. Leslie Daigle: The IAOC thanks outgoing member. Thank you Benson. Jari Arkko: The IESG thanks Joel Jaeggli and Stephen Farrell. I’m also stepping down. Thank you for Alissa to take the new role. We are all happy & lucky to see the changes happens. We can do the right thing. Thank you. Alissa Cooper: Thanks worlds to Jari Arkko from the community. Kathy Brown: Thanks to the outgoing chairs, Andrew Sullivan and Jari Arkko. Alissa Cooper: Thanks worlds to community. I am deeply honored to be new IETF chair. We have continuing and new challenges. Challenge how to make the internet better. Challenge/opportunity/principles/ideas/companies/people/. We challenge how to stay true to the core of what we do, and how we balance the new needs and issues. If you have ideas, I would love to hear them. 6. IAB open mic session and introduction of new members No questions. 7. IAOC open mic session and introduction of new members Thanks to IETF past chair. Introduction of new IETF Trust Chair, Kaveh Ranjbar. No questions. 8. IESG open mic session and introduction of new members Question: John Klensin: I have a question. It was mentioned in context of NomCom report, but this is a broader issue which is than we put together qualifications for various things, we put them together on the basis of using the NomCom three out of five rule for everything we thought of. In additions for NomCom issues that rule applies to initiating recalls. And while we never used that procedure to its full extent, as remote participations increases, we are the running risk of unfairness. In situations in which somebody who is participating remotely can not initiate a recall if they feel is unfair treatment to justify it. The instant issues came up with some years ago in IESG and no one had an interest in dealing with that. Is the IESG willing to take it on now? Alexey Melnikov: We had a discussion in the IESG that we would like to update various NomCom procedures. I made a foolish mistake to volunteer to be AD sponsoring some of the documents. That might be one of the issues that we consider. John Klensin: I applaud you looking at the Noncom procedures. My specific interests are tied to to NomCon qualifications. Which may need separate review. Alexey Melnikov: I believe there is a draft and it might expired at the moment. Joel Jaeggli: I think we have an existence proof of initiation of IETF recall procedures and it turns out, as somebody how signed up to support that, that because you have actually sign on to a recall, you can not be considered to the committee considered recall. It’s pretty easy to find 8 people who don’t want to be an committee within the IETF. I think actually makes that problem not the huge one. I think the existential question around is NomCom eligibility a problem with respect to how we chose our leadership and is actually rather important one because if we all remote, we can’t actually chose any one. And I think very serious problems. I think the recall procedure however looks like it has an escape clause. It does, absolutely, you can find 8 people to do that. John Klensin: Unless my memory is gone completely bad, there is no longer eight. Spencer Dawkins: Just in general, the IESG is spending a lot of time and thinking about what we can do to improve the remote participation experience. This falls under that. I don't know what the answer is, but its not out of scope and I think we should look at it. No other questions. Plenary adjourned.