Bob Hinden wrote:
Rereading RFC3005, it says:
The IETF Chair, the IETF Executive Director, or a sergeant-at-arms
appointed by the Chair is empowered to restrict posting by a person,
or of a thread, when the content is inappropriate and represents a
pattern of abuse.
The intended role of the sergeant-at-arms is for content that is is
inappropriate and represents a pattern of abuse. There was no
"inappropriate" nor "pattern of abuse" here whatsoever.
I think the original intention of rfc3005 is to restrict such
people as requiring alternative root zones for DNS purely for
their economic reasons.
Michael StJohns wrote:
The SAA MUST NOT be used as a tool, or even be perceived as being
used as a tool to stymie dissent, or to stop or steer discussions
that might be uncomfortable to the SAA or I*.
Considering that "sergeant-at-arms appointed by the Chair" [rfc3005]
and "Complaints regarding their decisions should be referred to the
IAB" [rfc3005], which means SAAs are loyal to I*, its practically
impossible, which is why SAAs power must be strictly limited as is
described by rfc3005.
As such, I was surprised to have received a mail recently from an
SAA saying:
We understand that this style of communication was accepted (if
not encouraged) in the past, but it is no longer the expectation
now.
As criticizing a draft without reading the draft is the worst
possible "unprofessional commentary" [rfc3005], it is established
manner of IETF to dismiss a person who repeatedly behave so by
saying "read the draft" with quotations from relevant part of the
draft.
Or, do I misunderstand something?
Masataka Ohta
