--On Wednesday, September 05, 2012 08:05 -0700 Ted Hardie <ted.ietf@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > I support the idea that there be mechanisms for removal of IDs > from both that don't require a court order, but I don't think > it should be too simple. I'd suggest: > > a) Stream owner approval for streams outside the IETF stream > (documents identified as irtf or IAB). > b) Relevant AD for WG documents > c) IESG for individual submissions, with any AD able to put > the matter to the IESG. At least for category (c), it might be reasonable to be more flexible about take-down, or at least early expiration, requests from authors than from third parties. That flexibility might reasonably not apply once a WG (or RG or the IAB) has started considering the document. If the IESG wants to assume the burden of evaluating those considerations on a case-by-case basis, it is fine with me, but I continue to believe that IESG members have better things to do with their time. To say that a different way, we should avoid loading more and more work onto the AD job description, even with the assent of the incumbents, so that we can hope to get candidates for the roles who do not have full-time support for participation in the IETF (and who have no other substantive responsibilities to their employers or sponsors during their terms). john