RE: Evaluating a draft on restricting posting rights

["Contreras, Jorge" <Jorge.Contreras@haledorr.com>]

>Questions for you:

>- This process creates a public statement that is somewhat semantically 
>equivalient to "the IETF says that so-and-so is a worthless idiot".
>Does this create significant liability risk for the IETF?

JLC> You are not actually calling someone a worthless idiot.  
Doing so would probably be defamatory, and might indeed give rise to 
some liability.  Please refrain!  You *are*, however, entitled
 to develop and enforce reasonable rules to ensure the quality 
of the discussions within IETF forums.  If a person does not 
comply with those rules, you are entitled to limit or eliminate
 his/her privilege to participate in the discussion.  However, you
should just enforce the rules, and not make gratuitous comments
about the person's idiocy or other traits.

>- Is the process outlined in the document strong enough and reasonable 
>enough that attempts to collect damages from the IETF would be easily 
>dismissable?

JLC>  The process in the mrose I-D is pretty good.  However, I might
suggest some more detailed procedural guidelines.  

As currently written, the only standard used to initiate the process,
and the only standard for conduct that's explicitly made part of the "rule",
is that an IESG AD identifies an individual whose postings "appear
to be abusive of the consensus-driven process."

This standard is a little loose.  I would prefer to see a more 
detailed rationale for initiating a P-R Action.  There is a good
discussion of appropriate discussion list behavior in RFC 3005, which
is cited in the mrose I-D.  However, technically, RFC 3005 only applies
to the IETF discussion list itself, and not all WG discussion lists.
Perhaps it would be a good idea to import the concepts from 3005
into this I-D so that there is a general IETF standard of acceptable
discussion list behavior.  You could then say that repeated violations
of the "acceptable behavior" guidelines may lead to a P-R Action.

I also note the mrose reference to Section 6.1 of RFC 2418.  The better
reference might actually be to the last paragraph of Section 3.2,
which addresses the issue of disruptive postings directly, but in a 
less detailed manner than either 3005 or the mrose I-D.  I would also
ask whether the mrose I-D, if it becomes a BCP, is intended to 
supersede the last paragraph of Sec. 3.2 of RFC 2418?  If so, I think
this should be made explicit.

I also like the thought in 2418, 3.2 that the "barred" person should
still be able to *receive* postings from IETF lists, even if he/she
can't post anymore.

- Is having this document and this process better than just doing the same 
thing secretly? (I *hope* that's a rhetorical question!)

JLC> YES!