--On Wednesday, September 05, 2012 08:05 -0700 Ted Hardie
<ted(_dot_)ietf(_at_)gmail(_dot_)com> wrote:
I support the idea that there be mechanisms for removal of IDs
from both that don't require a court order, but I don't think
it should be too simple. I'd suggest:
a) Stream owner approval for streams outside the IETF stream
(documents identified as irtf or IAB).
b) Relevant AD for WG documents
c) IESG for individual submissions, with any AD able to put
the matter to the IESG.
At least for category (c), it might be reasonable to be more
flexible about take-down, or at least early expiration, requests
from authors than from third parties. That flexibility might
reasonably not apply once a WG (or RG or the IAB) has started
considering the document.
If the IESG wants to assume the burden of evaluating those
considerations on a case-by-case basis, it is fine with me, but
I continue to believe that IESG members have better things to do
with their time. To say that a different way, we should avoid
loading more and more work onto the AD job description, even
with the assent of the incumbents, so that we can hope to get
candidates for the roles who do not have full-time support for
participation in the IETF (and who have no other substantive
responsibilities to their employers or sponsors during their
terms).
john