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/arch/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/rfc3934
---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.)Â Â 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.
