Re: IETF Trust response to the appeal by John C Klensin (July 18, 2009
On 9/7/09 at 3:07 PM -0400, Russ Housley wrote:
At 08:28 AM 9/4/2009, Thomas Narten wrote:
Without taking positions on the specifics of the appeal or the
response, I have to say that my take on the response is that it
doesn't properly address the appeal and is inadequate.
I would have expected the specific issues raised in the appeal to
be responded to in a direct manner, with a clear response as to
whether the point is agreed to (or not) and what (if any) remedy is
Instead, the response smacks of trying not to respond directly to
the appeal, but say "here is what we have been doing, let's please
just move on". IMO, that just doesn't cut it.
IMO, an appeal needs to be responded to with directness and with clarity.
I'm sorry that you read it that way.
I'm sorry, Russ, but I didn't "read it that way." It *is* that way.
It does not respond to the specific points and requests in the
appeal. Saying that you are sorry that Thomas (and I) "read it that
way" comes across as you saying "I'm sorry you were unable to read
the true meaning." It's, frankly, a non-apology and a bit
The first response that was drafted was a point-by-point reply as
you suggest. It was extremely repetitive, with the same points
being made over and over. I found the reply cumbersome at best. It
was my suggestion that we take the points that were made over and
over in that formulation of the response and structure it this way.
I see nothing in the appeal that would require repetition, which
indicates to me that perhaps the Trustees did not actually attempt to
answer the points of the appeal, or that the repetetive answers all
amounted to "no, we're not going to do that". How about answers to
On point (i) of the appeal: Will the Trustees cease taking action
(except for "emergencies") until minutes are up to date? No answer
was specifically given in the reply. If the answer is "yes", the
Trustees will need a specific answer to (ii), since I have already
seen the posting with regard to the new TLP due to go into effect
September 12. Either the Trustees have hereby declared "an
emergency", or the answer to point (i) is, "no, we will continue
taking actions even though minutes are not up to date."
(For the record, the minutes wherein the decision to post the new TLP
was taken are also not posted.)
On point (ii) of the appeal: Have the Trustees found that an
emergency exists now (and if so, where is the explanation of that
emergency)? In the future, will the Trustees explain to the community
when such an emergency exists? I find neither answer in the reply.
On point (iii) of the appeal: Did the Trustees find that a proper
Last Call was done on the TLP? Did the Trustees find that changes
made to the proposed TLP were small enough as to not warrant a new
Last Call? Neither of these questions is answered in the reply.
On point (iv) of the appeal: The reply answers this point, but starts
with the sentence "The Trustees were proactive." Please answer the
point in the appeal before patting yourselves on the back.
On point (v) of the appeal: The Trustees have not provided the
requested "summary and review of comments made on the June 23rd
version of that document, their decisions about each comment, and
the reasoning for those decisions" as far as I know. Have the
Trustees agreed to or rejected this element of the appeal?
On point (vi) of the appeal: Have the Trustees agreed to "treat the
authorities granted to themselves by the "Administrative Procedures"
document as invalid and without force until that document is updated
to contain specific provisions for openness, transparency, and
accountability, including the provisions for review outlined above,
and the rough consensus approval of the community is obtained for
that revision"? I see no answer in the reply.
On point (vii) of the appeal: The reply answers this point in the
paragraph which starts, "Second...".
Until the Trustees answer these questions directly, I (like Thomas)
do not find the appeal reply adequate.
Pete Resnick <http://www.qualcomm.com/~presnick/>
Qualcomm Incorporated - Direct phone: (858)651-4478, Fax: (858)651-1102
Ietf mailing list