On 7/17/06 at 8:52 PM +0200, Frank Ellermann wrote:
Pete Resnick wrote:
Appeals of this sort should not be brought to the IESG (or the
IAB). I suggest that the IESG and the IAB always decline to decide
such issues in the future should similar appeals come up.
The question then shifts from "is there a problem with 'this'
(whatever, here 3683) document" to "is there a general problem with
the standards process up to and including the IAB appeal".
No. In this particular case, the appeal was specifically about the
fairness of the procedure as documented in RFC 3683, not about the
process in adopting 3683. See
where it says:
"I am not interested in this part in the conformance of the IESG
procedure with RFC 3683, nor in the particulars of the case. They are
addressed in other parts. I am interested in the general conformance
of RFC 3683 (as experimented through this case) with the Human
Rights. From my experience RFC 3863 PR-actions are in violation of
the most elementary rights of the persons."
RFC 2026 is pretty plain on this. Section 6.5 allows for 3 kinds of appeals:
- 6.5.1 says that you can appeal a WG decision on the grounds that
your view hasn't been heard or it's technically wrong. In that case,
6.5.1 says the appeal goes WG-chair->AD->IESG->IAB->end.
- 6.5.2 says that you can appeal an IESG action on the grounds that
it didn't follow the process. In that case, 6.5.2 says the appeal
- 6.5.3 says that you can appeal on the grounds that the procedures
themselves are unfair. In that case, 6.5.3 says the appeal goes
This appeal was (as stated by the appellant) clearly one of type
6.5.3. It (and appeals like it) should therefore be rejected without
consideration by the IESG or the IAB. The appellant should bring them
directly to the ISOC Board of Trustees. (*Do not pass Go. Do not
Pete Resnick <http://www.qualcomm.com/~presnick/>
QUALCOMM Incorporated - Direct phone: (858)651-4478, Fax: (858)651-1102
Ietf mailing list