Hi, First off, none of this reply will be inline -- this mail is far too long. I asked an AI to summarize and will go from there. Take that as you will. Apparently you voice a concern about censorship by MODPOD. That there are inconsistencies and overreach of the MODPOD charter, against the writings in RFC 3934. I will mention that I have recently received a warning from this list's moderators, regarding the content in one of my emails [1]. The reason given was "uncivil commentary", which I agreed with. Self-derogatory does not make something open for insult, and I do think that the current American climate should be considered here as well. Either way, it was just a heads-up with no binding consequences, which was fine by me. The AI summary also mentioned that you voiced a concern about the volume of messages to a given list. This is something I have also received feedback about, from members I do not believe to have a moderator position on this list. I did not mention this in my private reply to that member, but I do not believe volume of messages compared to the list's contemporary norms to be a good argument. More messages simply means that the list becomes more active. If the quality of those messages is good, that's all there is to it as far as I'm concerned. However, please do keep things concise. I'll admit, I struggle with that too. I do not believe, however, that any of this is censorship. Maybe you have a more libertarian disposition than I do, but it is my belief that some amount of moderation is a good thing. That is what keeps communities healthy and fosters participation. Without that, it is inevitably overrun by extremism. Lastly, I think you should listen to the moderator response to your previous thread, and take this to moderators@xxxxxxxx for a suitable settlement. They are just humans like you and I, and I did find them to be quite reasonable with my case. If they aren't to you, maybe there's a good reason for that. Long story short, I don't think that this will go anywhere. -- Met vriendelijke groet, Michael De Roover Mail: ietf@xxxxxxxxxxxx Web: michael.de.roover.eu.org -- vim@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx.ideapad.internal [1] https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/-4TVTzymYuJIZrfUmYwVfFUf1Z4/ On Saturday, 6 September 2025 11:08:57 Central European Summer Time D. J. Bernstein wrote: > There is a very small WG called "MODPOD". The MODPOD charter that was > sent around to ietf-announce sounds like the WG's job is to resolve > _inconsistencies_ in IETF's existing "moderation procedures": > > > https://web.archive.org/web/20250827091120/https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arc > h/msg/ietf-announce/TBaquQhQAndS0o8kBlfWpjBcSSo/ > > However, the current MODPOD draft is actually setting up _new censorship > authorities_. See > > https://cr.yp.to/2025/20250904-modpod.pdf#section.7 > > for a list of five ways that the draft's censorship authorities go > beyond current IETF procedures. The draft itself doesn't contain this > comparison, but if you carefully read through the draft and compare it > to RFC 3934--- > > > https://web.archive.org/web/20250902092254/https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc > /draft-ietf-modpod-group-processes/ > https://web.archive.org/web/20250729112512/https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/r > fc3934 > > ---then you can see that each entry in my list is correct. > > I'm not saying that the MODPOD draft is violating the charter. The word > "moderator" is broad ("someone who presides over an assembly, meeting, > or discussion: such as (a) the chairman of a discussion group (b) a > person who administers an online forum, chat room, or group ..."; see > https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/moderator); this is broad > enough that it _can_ include censorship, even though it also includes > many other activities. Also, even though the MODPOD charter highlights > inconsistencies, there are some words buried in the charter that seem to > allow what the MODPOD draft is doing. > > What I _am_ saying is that what MODPOD is actually doing _wasn't > communicated by the charter_. This communication failure has compromised > the balance of interests in the WG. The WG was created by, and is > dominated by, a small group of people who support these new censorship > powers. Surely there many more IETF participants who understand that > stifling dissent often produces decisions contrary to the goal that > > https://www.ietf.org/blog/ietf-llc-statement-competition-law-issues/ > > labels as IETF's "fundamental" goal ("IETF participants use their best > engineering judgment to find the best solution for the whole Internet, > not just the best solution for any particular network, technology, > vendor, or user")---but most IETF participants haven't been told that > there's a WG adding new censorship authorities, so their voices haven't > been heard on the WG mailing list. > > To be clear, there has been _some_ opposition stated on the WG mailing > list. For example, here's a quote from Keith Moore's last message to the > > list, back in May: > > To me, the "potential downside of a team of moderators getting ahead of > > themselves" is to promote situations like the one in which a decision was > > made to launch Challenger in very cold weather, over the objections of > > engineers who understood that the temperature would degrade the > > effectiveness of the rubber o-rings in the solid rocket booster joints. > > I believe that having a "team" of moderators will result in WGs being > > "echo chambers" that discourage people from speaking up about problems > > that they observe, simply because those problems are inconvenient and the > > people who raise such issues are seen as "disruptive". (It's much > > easier to "blame the messenger" than to consider the potential merit in > > an alternative view.) I don't think any competent engineering > > organization, especially one which manages a system as important and > > complex as the Internet, can afford to discourage marginal voices, even > > when the people who are raising such issues are frustrated. > > The WG chairs issued last call in August (for comparison, the official > list of WG milestones says "Nov 2025 - WGLC"), with _nobody_ having > answered Keith Moore's objection. Apparently the only way to have the > objection count is to have it repeated during last call---and even at > that point the objection can still be ignored unless enough people > object. The deadline for objections is the 11th, under a week from now. > > On the MODPOD mailing list (mod-discuss), when I pointed out the limited > participation, Stephen Farrell wrote "Process WGs like this never > attract large numbers of participants so it is entirely possible that we > reach rough consensus in the WG on something that doesn't work for the > broader IETF." That's a huge problem for a WG proposing sweeping new > censorship authorities. What he proposed in response wasn't to solicit > broader WG participation, but merely to have IESG "include a plenary > presentation/discussion on this topic before the end of IETF LC". > > I laid out a case that this was inadequate, and suggested that the > chairs send IETF-wide email as follows: "The MODPOD charter says, in > short, that MODPOD's goal is to resolve inconsistencies in current > procedures. However, MODPOD's current draft actually creates new > censorship powers, such as adding five new IETF-wide censors, removing > RFC 3934's requirement of prior warnings, and adding a new list of > content-based categories of material that the censors are authorized to > selectively ban. We know censorship can be controversial. As chairs, we > would like to broaden WG participation to make sure that there is a > balance of interests before any WG decisions are made." But, of course, > the chairs didn't send any such email. > > It's safe to predict that the message I'm now sending will trigger > claims along the lines of "This is off-topic for ietf@xxxxxxxx; your > objections belong on the MODPOD mailing list, not here". I have three > responses to that: > > * I'm not asking for the merits of either side of the debate to be > discussed here. I'm saying that what's actually going on wasn't > communicated by the charter that IESG sent around IETF-wide, so > most of the parties with an interest in the topic have been > effectively disenfranchised. There needs to be corrective action > to tell interested parties around IETF what MODPOD is doing, so > that they can join the WG to have their voices heard on the MODPOD > mailing list. That's incompatible with having information sent > solely to the MODPOD mailing list. > > * The WG chairs sent me email asking me to reduce my "volume of > posting" on the MODPOD mailing list to "~25". I did exactly that, > while also complaining to them. Instead of responding to the > content of my complaint, they retaliated for the complaint by > starting to censor my messages to that list---which they have > _power_ to do as a technological matter, even though this wasn't > _authorized_ by IETF's current rules. If I were to send this > message to that list then it would be delayed and either (1) > deleted or (2) contributing to the "volume" that the chairs have > used as an excuse for censoring my objections in the first place. > > * An IESG member has publicly stated "If you are concerned not > enough people are participating, you can of course invite others > at IETF (eg via a reminder at ietf@xxxxxxxx)"---and that's what > I'm doing. I'm phrasing this as "alert" rather than "reminder" > because I don't see how any previous messages to ietf@xxxxxxxx (or > to ietf-announce) communicate the same information. > > The same IESG member says that ietf@xxxxxxxx isn't delivered to all IETF > participants ("more and more people were leaving that list"), so this > has limited power to combat the deficiencies in what IESG had sent to > ietf-announce, but maybe it's better than nothing. > > ---D. J. Bernstein > > P.S. The relevant meaning of the verb "censor" is "to examine in order > to suppress (see suppress sense 2) or delete anything considered > objectionable" (https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/censor). The > relevant concept of suppression is "to stop or prohibit the publication > or revelation of" (https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/suppress). > > The draft at hand authorizes a system of (inter alia) "review and > approval of submissions/messages" in order to suppress or delete > objectionable material (such as "uncivil commentary" or "incessant > requests for evidence or data" or other "behaviors not listed here"). > That's a perfect example of censorship, and it goes beyond IETF's > current procedures; see the second link above for details. > > I'm pointing this out because there have been endless repetitions on the > MODPOD list of the incorrect claim that the draft _doesn't_ authorize > censorship. The claim hasn't been withdrawn yet, so it will inevitably > appear in response to this message. This word accurately describes the > actual problem at hand.
