Subject: IAB Response to Appeal from Jefsey Morfin

From: Leslie Daigle <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 31 Jan 2006 13:28:27 -0500

On 4 January 2006, the IAB received an appeal from Jefsey Morfin
appealing the IESG decision to uphold the suspension of his
posting rights to the ietf-languages list. According to the
procedures in Section 6.5.2 of RFC 2026, the IAB has reviewed the
situation and issues the following response.

1. The Appeal Question

The IAB interpreted this appeal to be as follows:

The appeal concerns whether the IESG, in upholding the suspension of Mr.
Morfin's posting privileges to the ietf-languages mailing list, made an
incorrect decision.

2. The Scope and Basis of the Appeal

While Mr. Morfin noted several motivations for his appeal and
requests that several questions be answered in response to his
appeal, the IAB did not consider Mr. Morfin's discussion of
internationalization issues. Rather, the IAB reviewed the appeal
as it applies to the administration of IETF mailing lists and
specifically to the removal of posting rights. In particular, the
conclusions described here narrowly apply to the process used by
the IESG in upholding the 20 Nov 2005 suspension of Mr. Morfin's
posting rights on the ietf-languages mailing list. Finally, in
considering the appeal, we observe that the IESG noted that no
existing explicit mailing list policy RFC was applicable in this
case.

3. The Process used by the IAB to Review the Situation

The question raised by the appeal is whether the IESG followed
the Internet Standards Process in the upholding of the suspension
of Mr. Morfin's posting rights to the ietf-languages mailing
list.

The procedure used by the IAB in considering this appeal has
included:

o Review of the documentation of the IETF's standards procedures
     as described in RFC 2026 and RFC 2418,

o Review of IETF Mailing List Administrative Procedures, as
     documented in RFCs 2418, 3005, 3683, and 3934, and

o Review of the context and history of this appeal

4. IAB Considerations

In its response to Mr. Morfin's initial appeal, the IESG notes:
"RFC 3934 does not strictly speaking, apply to non-WG lists but
we have considered it by analogy". The IAB found that RFC 3934 is
specific to working group mailing lists: Not only is RFC 3934
specifically identified as an update to RFC 2418 (which regards
working group procedures), but the clearly stated purpose of RFC
3934 is to give working group chairs similar authority on a
mailing list as they have in face-to-face meetings. In
particular, a working group chair can "refuse to grant the floor
to any individual who is unprepared or otherwise covering
inappropriate material, or who, in the opinion of the chair, is
disrupting the WG process" during a meeting. It is precisely
because of their designation as working group chair that RFC 3934
provides the chair the ability to suspend posting rights without
IESG approval. This calls into question the suspension of mailing
list posting rights under RFC 3934 other than by working group
chairs on working group mailing lists.

The IAB also reviewed other IETF mailing list management RFCs.
RFC 3683 refers to the "temporary suspension of posting rights to
a specific mailing list." However, we were hard-pressed to find
language in RFC 3683 that could have been applied in either the
initial suspension or the IESG response. In particular, RFC 3683
notes that those temporary suspensions are documented in RFC 2418
(which, like RFC 3934, applies to working group chairs) and RFC
3005 (where the IETF chair, the executive director, and a duly
appointed sergeant-at-arms are the ones empowered to refuse
postings to the [email-masked] mailing list), neither of which
covers the case at hand.  As a result, we find there is no
specific mailing list management process RFC that applies.

While we find that neither RFC 3683 nor RFC 3934 directly apply
in this case, the IAB understands that the IETF must be able to
act in the face of ambiguity in "the rules." Indeed, it would be
a terrible outcome if we found the IESG's decision would have
been reasonable if neither RFC 3683 nor RFC 3934 existed, but now
unreasonable since the documents do exist but don't
apply. Moreover, current well-established practice allows for
mailing list maintainers of any IETF mailing list, without
prior approval, to remove or block posts from viruses or other
operationally-disrupting e-mail sources, and we are not offering
a decision that we believe contradicts that. Responsible parties
must be able to take action even if there is ambiguity or lack of
explicit coverage by specific process documents.

Of course, these actions are not arbitrary: RFC 3934 limits working
group chairs to only restrict posting rights in order to support
constructive work on the working group's chartered activity, and
current list maintainer practice is only to block postings from
operationally-disruptive sources. In the spirit of RFC 2026 and
RFC 3935, those actions must be governed by appropriate judgment
and the basis for such judgments should be clear and public.  The
IAB believes this is imperative in order to ensure that the IETF
continues to function in the most open and fair manner possible,
for all participants.

5. IAB Conclusion on the Appeal

The IAB found that the response provided by the IESG in this
action did not provide sufficient justification to sustain the
banning of Mr. Morfin from the ietf-languages mailing list. In
particular, while the IAB agrees with the IESG that no specific
mailing list process RFCs directly apply in this case, its
response is not sufficiently clear why RFC 3934 is considered
applicable "by analogy". Further, it is also unclear from the
IESG's response what the scope of applicability of RFC 3934 might
be, or when other process RFCs  might be applied "by
analogy". Therefore, the IESG's action does not meet the clear
and public requirement outlined above and the IAB annuls the
IESG's decision in this appeal and sends the matter back to the
IESG for resolution.

Since the suspension period has expired, no remedy is
indicated. However, the IAB recommends that the ambiguities that
gave rise to this appeal be clarified, as described in the
following sections.

6. IAB Recommendations

6.1 Clearly Define the Operation of IETF Mailing Lists

If mailing list participation rules are to be based on
contributing constructively to work items, the IETF should
consider making public charters for those lists (however formal
or informal) so that people understand the scope of the work, the
person responsible for shepherding the discussion in accordance
with the charter, and rules governing participation in those
lists. In particular, future RFCs (or revisions of existing RFCs)
governing mailing list administration should clearly indicate who
the responsible parties are as well as the extent of their
authorities.

6.2 Disambiguate Current Mailing List Administration Procedures

The IAB recommends to the IETF that the ambiguity in the current
procedures be cleared up. In particular: RFCs 3005 and 3934 allow
for posting rights revocation for specific mailing lists (the
IETF main list and working group mailing lists) at the discretion
of people directly responsible to and appointed by the IESG;
RFC 3683 allows for posting rights revocation by any IETF mailing
list maintainer, but only on the basis of an IETF-wide  consensus
call (a high hurdle); current practice allows for posting rights
revocation by mailing list maintainers in the case of operational
emergencies; the large gap in between those procedures is not
addressed, either by BCP or by well-established practice.

6.3 Clearly and Publicly Document IESG Decisions on Appeals

When deciding similar cases in the future, the IAB recommends
that the IESG give clear and public support for the basis of
their decision, either by providing clear documentation of the
interpretation of applicability of existing process or by
referencing well-established current practice.

Leslie Daigle,
IAB Chair.

_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

---

From: Sam Hartman <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 31 Jan 2006 13:53:35 -0500

So, a clarification request:

Am I correctly understanding that the clear and public requirement
does not always imply a process RFC?  In particular, John Klensin has
made an argument that there are a wide variety of matters that are
better handled by operational procedures made available for community
comment than by BCP document.

It's my reading that the IAB is interested in making sure that the
processes and rules are clear and public, not that they are all
codified in BCP.

I'm not looking for a formal response from the IAB but would
appreciate comments from its members.

--Sam

---

From: Leslie Daigle <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 31 Jan 2006 14:42:24 -0500

Sam,

One IAB member's perspective:  no, the expectation is not
BCP upon BCP upon BCP.

The devil is, of course, in the details.   Even community commented
on published operational procedures should not be at odds with
our general or specific process documents, or else that seems
to suggest the process documents need updating.  And we have
a community-defined process for that (which seems to result
in a BCP).

Again -- that's just one person's perspective.

Leslie.

---

From: Sam Hartman <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 31 Jan 2006 14:47:01 -0500

>>>>> "Leslie" == Leslie Daigle <[email-masked]> writes:

    Leslie> The devil is, of course, in the details.  Even community
    Leslie> commented on published operational procedures should not
    Leslie> be at odds with our general or specific process documents,
    Leslie> or else that seems to suggest the process documents need
    Leslie> updating.  And we have a community-defined process for
    Leslie> that (which seems to result in a BCP).

O, this statement I completely agree with.

--Sam

---

From: "Bernard Aboba" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 31 Jan 2006 11:58:53 -0800

My personal perspective is that on a subject as sensitive as banning, it is 
very important to have clear, well documented procedures dictating the 
process and who is allowed to initiate the ban.  Creation of more documents 
may not be the solution to this problem, particularly since the 
applicability and overlap of the existing documents is already somewhat 
unclear.

>From: Leslie Daigle <[email-masked]>
>To: Sam Hartman <[email-masked]>
>CC: IAB <[email-masked]>, "Iesg (E-mail)" <[email-masked]>, [email-masked]
>Subject: Re: IAB Response to Appeal from Jefsey Morfin
>Date: Tue, 31 Jan 2006 14:42:24 -0500
>
>Sam,
>

---

From: Harald Tveit Alvestrand <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 31 Jan 2006 15:39:33 -0800

IAB,

Thank you for the processing of this request.

However, this mailing list maintainer is now completely uncertain about 
what his marching orders are with regards to continuing to administer the 
ietf-languages list.

The IAB seems to have decided that it's the IESG that has to decide this; 
there is nothing else in the decision of the IAB that is clear to me.

Until the IESG hands me a new decision, I will continue to administer the 
ietf-languages list as if RFC 3683 was appropriate guidance for 
administering it, including upholding the current suspension of posting 
rights for Jefsey Morfin until February 13, 2006.

The alternatives would be to declare that I'm making up the rules on my 
own, or to declare that the list has no rules until the IESG decides; the 
last interpretation is not one I'm willing to run a list under.

(Yes, he's gotten suspended again.)

                    Harald Alvestrand

---

From: "Anthony G. Atkielski" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 1 Feb 2006 02:52:10 +0100

> (Yes, he's gotten suspended again.)

It sounds a lot like you're trying to rationalize a personal
preference.  Your instructions are apparently unclear, so you just do
what you want.  It takes you several paragraphs to say it, but that's
what it amounts to.

I like the use of the passive: "He's gotten suspended again," as if a
stray lightning bolt did this and no human being had any role in it.
Apparently you must uphold the suspension actively, but the suspension
itself takes place through some sort of external magical influence.

---

From: "JFC (Jefsey) Morfin" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 01 Feb 2006 03:23:25 +0100

I thank the IAB for the processing of my request. I acknowledge its decision.

The IAB has decided not to discuss the motives of the contention, but 
the use of RFC 3934 to legitimate a ban decision (also used in the 
three other cases). Harald Alvestrand indicated the reasons of this 
use: if the list "didn't behave as if it was subject to RFC 3934, the 
IETF would be justified in asking someone else to take on the job of 
running the list." This is consistent with the consequences he draws 
from the IAB decision: "the alternatives would be to declare that I'm 
making up the [list] rules on my own, or to declare that the list has 
no rules until the IESG decides; the last interpretation is not one 
I'm willing to run a list under."

This means that the IAB, Harald Alvestrand and I root the issue 
[which make us waste so much time for one year] in the unclear 
status, "basically, for *me* " (says Michael Everson, [email-masked] 
at 15:57 20/01/2006), of the RFC 3066 IANA 
[email-masked] mailing list. I hope this list will soon 
be a IANA managed mailing list, or that the IESG requires the WG-ltru 
to gives it a more precise status through RFC 3066 bis (a debate I 
proposed and I was denied).

I make a note of the IESG and of the IAB "no comment" concerning my 
propositions in the Multilingual Internet, users requirements and 
ethic areas. I now feel free to proceed along these propositions in 
the respect of the Internet standard process.

I received several "well done" mails. I consider that Harald and I 
are both only trying to do our best to clarify a complex issue to the 
benefit of the users and of the IETF. I genuinely hope the IAB 
decision will help us to openly discuss it, taking the necessary time.

jfc

---

From: Frank Ellermann <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 01 Feb 2006 04:33:17 +0100

JFC (Jefsey) Morfin wrote:

> I hope this list will soon be a IANA managed mailing list,
> or that the IESG requires the WG-ltru to gives it a more
> precise status through RFC 3066 bis (a debate I proposed
> and I was denied).

That's of course not the case, it was debated for quite some
time in "the making of 30066bis":

<http://mid.gmane.org/[email-masked]>
<http://mid.gmane.org/[email-masked]>

Just two examples grepping for "3934" in an LTRU archive.
 
> I consider that Harald and I are both only trying to do our
> best to clarify a complex issue to the benefit of the users
> and of the IETF. I genuinely hope the IAB decision will help
> us to openly discuss it, taking the necessary time.

Whatever it takes.  I like a new IAB draft published recently:
<http://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-iab-idn-nextsteps-02>
-- 
Frank

---

From: "JFC (Jefsey) Morfin" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 01 Feb 2006 05:46:28 +0100

Dear Frank,
RFC 3066 bis is now a local low interest issue, under IESG appeal, 
mainly for security considerations.
IRT your so called debate, I do not think that "leaving the things as 
they are" is an innovative solution. Now someone has to do the work.
jfc