+1 to David's comments. One additional observation. I've read, and tried working with, the IESG statement before this. IMO, and based on discussions with Counsel and a DMCA contributor long enough ago that I was concerned about personal liability, the statement almost certainly needs work, if only because there are scenarios where making the sole mechanism for determining whether an I-D should be taken down a matter of IESG consensus discretion may be inappropriate. Consider, without getting into lawyer-land by speculating on effects, the following scenarios: (1) The IETF receives a DMCA takedown notice that alleges a particular I-D contains serious copyright violations. The statement, if taken seriously, does not permit the IAD or Secretariat to remove the I-D: the IESG must be consulted and reach consensus. (2) Noting that the author of a draft cannot have it removed except by asking the IESG and hoping that their consensus is to go along with the request, suppose it is discovered that an I-D accidentally disclosed important trade secret material and the company involved claims that it is more damaged with each day the material is available. (3) An I-Ds is posted that makes personal and suggestive allegations about some other IETF participant that the latter considers harassment or worse. Do the new harassment prevention/ mitigation mechanisms allow taking such a draft down or does the ombudteam (or the author) have to politely ask the IESG to make a decision on the subject and hope they go along? (4) Does (3) change at all if "allegations" are replaced by potentially defamatory or libelous statements. I note that we have a variety of disclaimers and required author assertions of responsibility for what is posted. I have no reason to believe they are in any way inadequate to protect the IETF from problems associated with initial posting. The questions arise as to whether the takedown mechanisms or the time they are likely to take are appropriate given the above scenarios or others. john --On Monday, April 20, 2015 14:08 -0700 Dave Crocker <dhc@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >>> > https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/removal-of-an-internet >>> > -draft.html >> Exactly. We could always turn that into a BCP I suppose, > > > Separate from the usual question of the IESG setting IETF > policy by fiat, without explicitly developing IETF rough > consensus, there's the small matter of finding that policy > about the handling of Internet Drafts. > > A visitor to the ietf site, is not likely to wander through > pages until they find this policy. Rather, I'd expect anyone > who is curious about the draft 'series' to look at: > > ietf.org -> "Internet Drafts" > <http://www.ietf.org/id-info/ > > There, the only the text they will see on removal is: > > "Internet-Drafts have no formal status, and are subject to > change or removal at any time;" > > If the IESG statement is, in fact, IETF policy on Internet > Draft removal, it probably should be cited on that page.