[Mod-discuss] Re: Moderator Team Procedures - For Community Input

[S Moonesamy <[e-mail]>]

Hi Simon, Bron,
At 11:29 AM 23-10-2026, Simon Josefsson wrote:
>Bron Gondwana <brong=[e-mail]> writes:
> > The IESG has a policy on it. They have declared that they find it
> > disruptive to have legal claims about message content which are
> > incompatible with the notewell being made in messages to IETF forums.
> > It distracts from the purpose of creating high quality technical
> > documents which is the IETF's mission; hence it's in scope.
>
>The IESG may have policies on many things.  That doesn't mean you need
>to censor discussion that doesn't follow the policy.  This all seems
>like a continuation of a personal conflict, and I don't think it helps
>the IETF to continue to pursue it.

The IAB took a decision in July 2026.  Here's an extract from it:

   "The appellant's argument regarding RFC 5378 is responsive to a claim that
    the IESG did not make. RFC 5378 was cited by the IESG only to establish
    that the message was a contribution, not as the source of the 
AD's discretion
    over confidentiality."

 From what I understand, this message to the mod-discuss mailing list 
would be considered as a "Contribution" under the current IPR 
rules.  It's debatable whether the content has any value.  There are 
companies who take up that question in the appropriate venue.  And 
this is what the "IETF" does: 
https://www.ietf.org/media/documents/Nugent-Declaration-10multipleI-Ds-PerkinsCoie-RequestDate05.09.2024-Signed-23May2024.pdf

The text which was disputed is displayed at the bottom of this web 
page: 
https://datatracker.ietf.org/group/iesg/appeals/artifact/316  It did 
not prevent the IESG from taking its decision.

The discussion seems like a personal disagreement as Simon Josefsson 
noted.  It would be easier, in my opinion, to drop the IESG statement 
from the list of "disruptive things" instead of determining whether 
IESG statements are part of IETF best current practices.  If an IESG 
member has a strong opinion on including it, he/she will the 
opportunity to insist that the statement has to be added to the list 
of "disruptive things".

Regards,
S. Moonesamy