Sam,
Clearly we should be thinking about some way to "charge"
participants for potentially abusing the IETF appeals process
in general. There is some minimal processing time associated
with any appeal for everyone who has anything to do with it.
I don't think posting rights is the way to do this. For
one thing, it is obvious that this too can be appealed.
Perhaps the appeal process should require that a token
cash amount must be deposited with some ISOC general fund -
with the provision that the deposit would be reimbursed if
the appeal is found to have merit?
--
Eric
--> -----Original Message-----
--> From: ietf-bounces(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
[mailto:ietf-bounces(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org]
--> On Behalf Of Sam Hartman
--> Sent: Friday, January 20, 2006 4:14 PM
--> To: Frank Ellermann
--> Cc: ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
--> Subject: Re: FW: IETF Last Call under RFC 3683 concerning
--> JFC (Jefsey) Morfin
-->
--> >>>>> "Frank" == Frank Ellermann
<nobody(_at_)xyzzy(_dot_)claranet(_dot_)de> writes:
-->
--> Frank> Unrelated, I'm not sure why it was published
--> _there_ , the
--> Frank> IAB has its own directory for appeals.
-->
--> It's an appeal to the IESG.
-->
--> Jefsey's been a bit active in the appeal front lately:
-->
--> 1) He appealed a typo correction in RFC 3066bis to the area
--> director.
-->
--> 2) He appealed the rejection in 1 above to the IESG.
-->
--> 3) He appealed his posting suspension from ietf-languages
--> to the area
--> director, but the area director believed the IESG as a whole
--> needed to rule so we did.
-->
--> 4) He appealed 3 above to the IAB.
-->
--> 5)He appealed the approval of RFC3066bis to the IESG. That
--> appeal is ongoing.
-->
-->
--> _______________________________________________
--> Ietf mailing list
--> Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
--> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
-->
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf