The problem with the Oversight and appeal process is that it is described at
what in audit-speak would be described as a "200,000 foot narrative" and the
actual controls and response processes are undefined. The timeframe and
oversight for any failings of the staff implementing the appeal processes.
Also the 6.5.1 section defines two (2) specific instances of events that are
appealable and it totally neglects tortuous interference by others members
of the WG with another's proposed initiative or the failing or collusion of
the WG chair in those instances. Nor is their any recourse against those
potentially found to be responsible who are part of the IETF and IESG
----- Original Message -----
From: "Sam Hartman" <hartmans(_at_)mit(_dot_)edu>
To: "Pete Resnick" <presnick(_at_)qualcomm(_dot_)com>
Cc: "Frank Ellermann" <nobody(_at_)xyzzy(_dot_)claranet(_dot_)de>;
Sent: Thursday, July 20, 2006 8:12 AM
Subject: Re: Response to the Appeal by [...]
"Pete" == Pete Resnick <presnick(_at_)qualcomm(_dot_)com> writes:
Pete> On 7/18/06 at 11:13 AM +0200, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
>> Speaking only for myself, I have always read the words "Further
>> recourse is available..." at the beginning of section 6.5.3 of
>> RFC 2026 to mean that an appeal to the ISOC Board can only
>> follow rejection of an appeal by both the IESG and IAB.
Pete> I simply don't see how it can be read that way, especially
Pete> if you read through 6.5 in its entirely. It probably would
Pete> have caused less confusion if Scott had said "Other than the
Pete> above, the only grounds for appeal are in cases...".
Having read 6.5 in its entirety multiple times, I agree with Brian's
reading not yours.
Brian's reading is also preferable because in cases where the
unfairness of procedures is sufficiently blatent, the ISOC BOT need
not get involved.
Finally, Brian's reading means that the ISOC BOT will have both the
IAB and the IESG's opinions on why the procedures are in fact fair. I
think that is useful input for their process.
Ietf mailing list
Ietf mailing list