Subject: Re: namedroppers mismanagement

From: Thomas Narten <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 26 Jan 2000 23:01:00 -0500

On January 15, 2000, the Internet ADs received a complaint from
D. J. Bernstein entitled "namedroppers mismanagement". This note is
our response.

The jist of the complaint was summarized by Mr. Bernstein as:

> In short, to use the language of RFC 2026 section 6.5.1: Mismanagement
> of the namedroppers mailing list is preventing the IETF DNS working
> groups from adequately considering the views of their participants, and
> is placing the quality and integrity of the working group's decisions in
> jeopardy.

The Internet ADs do not agree with this assertion. In particular:

1) The Internet ADs are aware that the mailing list is moderated and
   support the chairs efforts in keeping WG activities focussed on WG
   chartered deliverables.

2) The specific 7 incidents cited include:

   - 3 that occurred more than a year ago, [not considered due to
     statue of limitations considerations]
   - 1 involving lack of timely approval of a posting, [inevitable
     with a moderated list] 
   - 1 involving what was clearly a problem with the mailing list
     software [a message posted at the same time by one of the ADs was
     also caught in the same timewarp] 
   - 1 involving a message that  was rejected as off-topic (with a
     note suggesting a different mailing list)
   - 1 involving a message that was forwarded to dnsop, rather than
     being posted to namedroppers, without the author being told this
     was being done.

   We do not see any evidence that one of the WG chairs, Randy
   Bush's moderating activities "actively and deliberately bias the
   mailing list discussions". (As a side note, namedroppers is
   actually co-moderated by Randy Bush and Mark Kosters.) However, we
   have sent a reminder to the chairs/moderators that all rejected
   postings (including messages forwarded to a more appropriate list
   instead) should result in an explanatory note being sent to the
   author.

Finally, in your note:

> P.S. Is there an email address for the Internet Society Board of
> Trustees? I have the individual addresses of the current members but
> would prefer to use a group address if one exists.

We feel compelled to point out that in the event that further appeals
are deemed necessary, the process to follow is outlined in RFC
2026. Specifically, the next place to appeal this response is the
IESG, followed by (if necessary) the IAB. Note that appeal to the ISOC
is specifically mentioned in section 6.5.3 of 2026.

Thomas & Erik