At 7:54 AM -0500 1/25/05, avri(_at_)psg(_dot_)com wrote:
in (2) I think that the review request need to be addressed to the
chair of the respective body. I think the language of 2026 can be
adapted as to contents.
Yes, I agree. That is what I included in my proposed wording (lo
these many moons ago), but would also accept other alternatives, as
long as it is clear when someone would send a review request and it
is clear who is responsible for making sure that it is considered.
in (5), I think the appeals should have the full chain of appeals.
I know 'at least one level' does include the chain, but I think it
is important to be able to appeal all the way to the ISOC BoT.
Why do you think so? If it is the ISOC BoT that you want in the loop
specifically, I suppose that the first level could go there... It
seems to me that multi-level appeals in the IETF have not worked very
in (6), I agree that decisions that involve contractual obligations
mustn't be overturned, but I have a problem with saying that there
are no decisions that can be overturned.
So, how would you make the distinction? One of the reasons why I'd
rather see no decisions subject to being overturned is that I don't
want the IAOC to have an incentive to hide their contract or hiring
plans from us until after they are signed (and can't be overturned).
Ietf mailing list