Re: Follow up on disruptive person during IETF 119

[Bron Gondwana <[e-mail]>]

I think we're coming close to needing a "KYC" type of registration process for the IETF, along with affirmative agreement to the Note Well.  I don't think we can have entirely anonymous people contributing to standards and align with our other requirements.

I have been increasingly feeling that the Note Well slides at the start of sessions either need an exact spoken script or need to be standardised in some other way, or removed.  They're either un-necessary, or need to be more explicitly managed somehow.

In particular, somebody can walk into the room after they have been presented and hence avoid been "notewelled".

And similarly, having a slightly harder process to become a person who can contribute to any IETF mailing list or document; such that you can't easily add sock-puppet accounts will give us the ability to handle denial of service risks.

Bron.

On Fri, Mar 22, 2024, at 14:18, Mark Nottingham wrote:
> Jay,
> 
> I hear you, but I sat in on an IGF (IIRC) session that was porn-bombed; it only has to happen once. We need to be ready for that.
> 
> You bring up a good point re data tracker: are we doing anything to identify obviously suspect / "sock puppet" accounts there? The high numbers from Turkey were suggestive.
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> 
> 
> > On 22 Mar 2024, at 11:25, Jay Daley <[e-mail]> wrote:
> > 
> > Two important things to remember
> > 
> > 1.  We intentionally use Meetecho in a mode that delegates permissions to Datatracker. This allows us to define who the chairs are, what eligibility people have for sessions etc.  
> > 
> > 2.  We’ve operated in a particular way for quite some time and this is first real issue we’ve had. Extrapolating from this to regular disruption is taking things too far.
> > 
> > Jay
> > 
> >> On 22 Mar 2024, at 11:10, Richard Barnes <[e-mail]> wrote:
> >> 
> >> Hi Jay,
> >> 
> >> Thanks for taking action on this.  I'm surprised that this is such a complicated thing to implement, especially the part where a WG chair has to contact the secretariat.  That adds a bunch of slowness during an IETF meeting, and is clearly not workable for interim meetings.
> >> 
> >> Normal web conferencing platforms (Webex, Zoom, MS Teams, etc.) have tools for a meeting host to manage disruptive "Zoom bombing" participants.  Does MeetEcho not have such tools?
> >> 
> >> --RLB
> >> 
> >> 
> >> On Thu, Mar 21, 2024 at 9:04 PM Jay Daley <[e-mail]> wrote:
> >> IESG / WG Chairs
> >> 
> >> The background here is that we had one individual disrupt a number of sessions, including the plenary, and we were required to first temporarily ban them and then permanently ban them.  
> >> 
> >> The meetings team (LLC, Secretariat, NOC, Meetecho, Tools) have discussed this and we propose the following way forward to manage similar instances in the future.
> >> 
> >> 1.  Maintain a trust-based approach with an exception process, rather than introduce new controls to lock/unlock a whole session.  We think approach both maintains the permissive culture of the IETF and avoids extra complexity for WG Chairs.
> >> 
> >> 2.  Add a new feature in Datatracker that allows the Secretariat to remove a participant from a session and more permanently.  The technical details here are that this feature will revoke their registration permissions and call a Meetecho API to remove them. 
> >> 
> >> 3.  For single session removal this new process can be invoked by a WG chair (of the session) or an AD, contacting the Secretariat.  Permanent removal can only be authorised by me or Roman, normally after rapid consultation with the IESG.
> >> 
> >> Does this work for everyone?
> >> 
> >> Jay
> >> 
> >> -- 
> >> Jay Daley
> >> IETF Executive Director
> >> [e-mail]
> >> 
> > 
> > -- 
> > Jay Daley
> > IETF Executive Director
> > [e-mail]
> > 
> 
> --
> Mark Nottingham   https://www.mnot.net/
> 
> 

--
  Bron Gondwana, CEO, Fastmail Pty Ltd
  [e-mail]