Reminder: current text of appeals is this:
If someone believes that the IAOC has violated the IAOC rules and
procedures, he or she can ask the IETF leadership to investigate the
matter, using the same procedure as is used for appeals of procedural
issues in the IETF, starting with the IESG.
If the IESG, IAB or the ISOC Board of Trustees find that procedures
have been violated, they may advise the IAOC, but do not have
authority to overturn or change a decision of the IAOC.
The IAOC plays no role in appeals of WG Chair, IESG, or IAB
decisions.
This is considerably restricted from version -01, based in part on your
previoius comments on that version.
I don't see how to interpret your current comments in relation to this
text, since:
- IAD decisions cannot be appealed
- Only procedure violations can be appealed
- The bodies appealed to can only advise the IAOC, they cannot (for
instance) overturn a contract.
Indeed, I wonder if we have gone too far in limiting the power of appeal in
this version (see others' comments).
Could you please help me understand whether you think the current text
*still* allows too many frivolous appeals and too much power to the
appealant?
Harald
--On 12. desember 2004 20:50 -0500 Scott Bradner <sob(_at_)harvard(_dot_)edu>
wrote:
open from last version
I think that the text on appeals is still not clear enough (based
on other messages to the list, other people agree)
I am very leary of any unlimited ability for IAD (or IAOC) decisions
to be appealed - anything like that would be a too easy DoS vector
I am most worried about any ability to appeal a decision to award a
contract (for a function, for consulting, or for equipment) - I do not
think I should be able to appeal if the IAD decided buy a Windows
computer just because I happen to think that Macs are better/safer - I
do not think that the looser in a bidding process should be able to
appeal the IAD selecting someone other than the lowest cost bidder
(because, for example the lowest cost bidder is a deadbeat)
during the discussion I have come to the conclusion that we need
something more than the ability to racal the members of the IAOC - maybe
the ability to appeal with a claim that a published evaluaion process
was not followed - but I'd not like any such appeal to be able to
easily (or at all) cancel a signed contract (there might be significant
liabilities if that were possible)
I do not now have any suggestion as to wording but I do not see that
this issue is closed
Scott
_______________________________________________
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