Note that one reason for publishing IESG statements rather than BCPs is that the IESG statement reflects IESG consensus, not IETF consensus, and can be changed any time the IESG consensus changes. Presumably, this is a quicker process than determining that IETF consensus has changed (and also easier to document - unlike IETF participants, we know the names of all the IESG members). If the IESG becomes aware that (for instance) harassment in I-D text has just become a serious problem, and as a result, the ombudsperson should be given the power to take down I-Ds without consulting the IESG, it can do that. So far, I don't think we know of a present problem that indicates that we need a change to this process, but if required, the IESG can Just Do It. Den 21. april 2015 08:02, skrev Pete Resnick: > On 4/20/15 6:49 PM, John C Klensin wrote: >> --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... > > I think that's a bit inflammatory and accusatory, and in this case > incorrect. The IESG proposed this publicly before publishing it, and a > 3-week long community discussion took place, in which many of the > present discussants took part: > > https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/search/?qdr=c&q=subject%3A(Removal+of+an+Internet-Draft)&as=1&so=date > > > The policy was not set by the IESG by fiat, but rather resulted from > community deliberations. Now, there wasn't a *formal* call for > consensus, but even so, I can't find any mention in that discussion of > anyone saying, "This needs to be a formal consensus of the IETF, > documented as a BCP, not just an IESG statement" or anything like that. > Perhaps people don't feel that they can do that, or ought to in the face > of a proposal from the IESG, but I have a hard time believing that none > of the senior participants on this list felt that they could. Either > way, I think accusing the IESG of "setting policy by fiat" in this case > is wrong. > >>> 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. >>> > > Agreed. > >> +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: >> > > This was discussed publicly, and by the IESG, when this topic came up. > Without diving into the detail of all 200 of the IETF list messages and > minutes of IESG discussions, my memory is that we thought a bad idea to > put the secretariat or the IAD in the position of making a legal (or > other potentially controversial) call to remove something from the > public archive without the IESG giving an "OK". For example, even if the > IETF received a legal notice requiring removal of a draft from the > public archive, where the secretariat or IAD might be inclined to simply > take the action, the IESG might ask the IAD to inquire about the > possibility of filing a legal challenge before undertaking the action. > > But I can't tell from your list whether your concern is simply about the > potential delay in having the IESG coming to consensus, or rather the > possibility that the IESG goes nuts and doesn't listen to legal advice > when it is asked for its OK. While it's possible for the latter to > happen I suppose, it's not something I think we need really to account for. > > pr >