The document does not touch on the typical ARTART review topics, so while assigned to review for this, I'll go for more general topics.

Suggestions
-----------

* This document increases the impact moderation decisions can have. Having the option to do this is warranted, but needs counterbalance -- some steps have already been taken in that direction, but given recent controversies around cryptographic recommendations, I think that more should be done.

  An aspect I find lacking in the countermeasures is ensuring that important technical objections do not get lost in the struggle for orderly conduct. This is especially important because contributors with good technical expertise but little (or bad) experience with IETF procedures might easily feel like they have exhausted all legal and peaceful means, and start drawing attention to the defects in other IETF venues (which might then easily be viewed as disruptive in those places).

  What I suggest as a counterbalance is to encourage, train and give tools to moderators to retain on technical points raised by those subject to moderation. This might happen by identifying people sympathetic to the cause who participate in a more orderly fashion (eg. by reaching out to those being moderated, or by coordinating with the responsible admins such as WG chairs), and invite them to present them in the appropriate venues (by shaping them into document contributions, by assisting the shepherd in populating the "extreme discontent" item, and/or as input to in the IETF last call).

  Such a mechanism might well have a place not in this document but in the moderation procedures, but at least the mandate to be active in this direction should IMO be in here.

* Ad 5.2: The expectation that LLC actions would be rare (and thus those that do not lead to moderation being informed being rarer) could be supported by the LLC publishing canary statements on that topic. Something like "To date, the LLC has not performed any moderation steps as in 5.2 that the moderator team has not been informed of". I do not have the experience in that matter to tell whether such an arrangement would better be described here, or just be arranged with LLC to publish without formal setup.

Editorial remarks
-----------------

* As a reviewer I found this easier to approach by reading appendix B first. The current sequence makes sense for publication as BCP, and it is good to still have the appendix as reference.