Is this intended to replace the section on appeals? In other words,
will we have this review mechanism _instead_ of the ability to
actually appeal a decision of the IAOC?
If so, I'm not comfortable with that. I understand that there needs
to be some limit on the action that is taken in the event of an
appeal (we can't undo a signed contract, for instance), but I don't
understand why we should eliminate the appeal mechanism altogether.
We already have limits on the actions that can be taken in appeals
(the IAB or ISOC can't approve a document on an appeal of an IESG
decision, and no one can up-publish an RFC). So, why can't we just
include a clause like that and use the existing appeals mechanism?
Although we haven't had very many of them rise to the formal level, I
think that a formal appeals process is valuable, as it underscores
the fact that a group is accountable to the community and it gives a
person who is unhappy with a decision some leverage to raise the
issue and get it resolved without recourse to a formal appeal. So,
I'd be sorry to see us lose that leverage with the IAOC.
It seems strange, IMO, to be so worried about DoS attacks through the
appeal process we've been using this process for several years for
IESG and WG decisions and haven't experienced that sort of problem...
Margaret
At 11:47 AM +0100 1/19/05, Harald Tveit Alvestrand wrote:
Trying to close this item, which is not resolved in the -04 draft:
I believe that the list discussion has converged on very rough
consensus (Sam and Avri being the people who worry that we're
building a DoS attack defense that we don't need, but Brian, Scott
and John Klensin, at least, strongly arguing that we need that
mechanism) on the following text, which I suggested on Jan 13,
replacing the last 3 paragraphs of section 3.4:
------------------------------------------------------
3.5 Decision review
In the case where someone questions a decision of the IAD or the
IAOC, he or she may ask for a formal review of the decision.
The request for review is addressed to the person or body that made
the decision. It is up to that body to decide to make a response,
and on the form of a response.
The IAD is required to respond to requests for a review from the
IAOC, and the IAOC is required to respond to requests for a review
of a decision from the IAB or from the IESG.
If members of the community feel that they are unjustly denied a
response to a request for review, they may ask the IAB or the IESG
to make the request on their behalf.
Answered requests for review and their responses are made public.
-------------------------------------------------------
Can we live with this?
Harald
_______________________________________________
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