At 17:12 20/07/2006, Sam Hartman wrote:
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.
Pete's reading would be favorable to the PR-defamacted person. He/She
would not have to suffer the unfairness born from the lacks of the
RFC 3683 the practice has shown (independntly from any possible IESG
bias). Todd documented the reasons.
However this is something I cannot fully comment from my own
experience since my concern is the world's Multilingual Internet
interoperaberability with the IETF Internationalized Internet. My
whole "weak to strong" strategy and experimentation is built accordingly.
My real concern is the cost of all this. A serious appeal to ISOC
would call for a lawyer probably spending one or two months on the
matter. A serious response from ISOC would probably call for the same
level of expenses (only studying the case to decide if they take it
or not), something the IESG could obviously not afford. One has to
understand that this is not true that ISOC is the last step. The last
step is an international defamation case against IETF, i.e. ISOC, and
the initial individual authors, plus compensation for the losses I
and my organization incurred. I understand Brian is insured, ISOC is
probably not, Harald and co are probably not.
One single example: there is a mail of Harald Alvestrand explaining
his IESG F2F lobbying to get his PR-action accepted during an IETF
meeting. For the defense to have similar rights to the prosecution I
should have had the same possibility. This obviously favors the
involved member of the RFC 3774 affinity group or RFC 3935 "leaders".
PS. BTW several having told me I invented the notion of "affinity
group", here is the RFC 3774 source:
"2.6.6. Concentration of Influence in Too Few Hands
Until the last couple of years, successive IETF Nominating Committees
have chosen to give heavy weighting to continuity of IESG and
IAB membership. Thus, the IETF appeared to have created an
affinity group system which tended to re-select the same leaders from
a limited pool of people who had proved competent and committed in the past.
"Members of this affinity group tend to talk more freely to each
other and former members of the affinity group - this may be because
the affinity group has also come to share a cultural outlook which
matches the dominant cultural ethos of the IETF (North American,
English speaking). Newcomers to the organization and others outside
the affinity group are reluctant to challenge the apparent authority
of the extended affinity group during debates and consequently
influence remains concentrated in a relatively small group of people."
"This reluctance may also be exacerbated if participants come from a
different cultural background than the dominant one. Such
participants also tend to find it more difficult to follow the rapid
and colloquial speaking style of native English speakers, and may
consequently be effectively excluded from the discussion, even if
maximum assistance is available by such means as real time Jabber
logs and extensive text on presentation slides. Even on mailing
lists, people from other cultures may be reluctant to be as orthright
as is often the case in discussions between North Americans; also, a
person whose first language is not English may be daunted by the
volume of mail that can occur on some mailing lists and the use of
colloquialisms or euphemisms may cause misunderstandings if
correspondents are not aware of the problem."
"2.6.7. Excessive Reliance on Personal Relationships
"The IETF is an intensely personal and individualistic organization.
Its fundamental structure is based on individuals as actors, rather
than countries, organizations, or companies as in most other SDOs."
Ietf mailing list