OK, you guys are playing out of my depth, but ...
However, there can be situations where less than half the IAOC *is*
an appropriate majority - consider, for instance, a situation where
two of the IAOC are on holiday (leaving us with 6), one of the IAOC
is employed by EvilCorp, and the IAOC has to handle a complaint on
awarding a contract to EvilCorp (causing one to recuse), and for
some reason the issue is urgent and can't wait for the remaining 2
members to come back.
Previously, I was speaking in favor of a very minimal appeal process
for IAOC decisions (in the thread "Re: Adminrest: section 3.5b").
I'm not sure I'm as happy with limited appeals if two IAOC members can
lock themselves in a closet and start making decisions. Maybe this is
so far outside "reasonable" that I shouldn't be worried?
I guess I can live with this, if the expectation is that the rest of
the IAOC DOES return and reopens previously-made egregious decisions -
and I'm not sure I can imagine a decision that is so urgent that it
can't wait for something like a representative sample to assemble AND
cannot be reversed by the IAOC.
I think attempting to work all these corner cases out in the BCP is
not a Good Thing.
After talking with Margaret Wasserman about her two-stop flight from
the Bay Area to western Alaska to Seattle to Seoul (did I get this
right?) with entirely too many IAB and IESG members on one flight, I
have to think that it is likely that we'll have a corner case some day
where the IAOC has to make decisions and there isn't a "serving
majority" available - I'm thinking of the planes and passengers
stacked up at Halifax, Nova Scotia after 9/11 for a few days, for
example - and trying to accommodate every possible scenario in a BCP
is definitely Not A Good Thing.
Spencer
Harald
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf