Re: Rough consensus? #425 3.5

I have not been paying close attention to the debate over this section 
of the BCP before, so I may be covering a point that's been made before.
I think there will necessarily be a mixture of formal and informal 
processes at work once the IASA is in operation.  The IAOC is intended 
to be at once both independent of the day to day operation of the IESG 
and IAB so it can relieve them of the burden of managing the details on 
a day to day basis and at the same time responsive to the community.  No 
matter what formal mechanisms are put in place, the IAOC needs to keep 
its eyes and ears open to understand how well it is serving the 
community's needs.  Inevitably, there will be some decisions or actions 
that some will complain about.  When things are working well, the IAOC 
will find useful ways of respoding to such complaints, either by 
explaining the situation more fully, adjusting its decisions and 
actions, or, when the complaints simply represent a small minority with 
an unresolvable difference of opinion, standing firm.
Formal means for resolving disputes do need to exist.  I haven't studied 
Margaret's formulation carefully, but on first glance it looks fine to 
me.  Other formulations will also work.  As we all know, if there are 
very many formal disputes, then something larger is probably broken and 
needs to be fixed.  I'm confident the community will raise the noise 
level in that case and we'll be re-engaged in a full, open, community 
review of the IASA, IAOC, etc.
The bottom line on this for me is that everyone should expect the IAOC 
to report regularly and substantively to the community and to listen 
carefully to the community, and that form of communication will be the 
primary safety valve.
Steve

Margaret Wasserman wrote:
> Okay, Harald indicated to me privately that I should be more specific 
> about my objections to the current wording and offer some alternative, 
> so here goes...
> I do not object to the use of the term "review" instead of "appeal".
>
> However, I do object to the current wording proposed by Harald for two 
> reasons:
> (1) I think that there should be an effective way for members of the 
> community (not just members of the I*) to question the decisions of the 
> IAOC and receive some response.  If a wrong decision was made, it may 
> not always be possible to reverse the decisions of the IAOC (contracts, 
> etc.), but it could be possible to consider the situation and create new 
> rules or guidelines to prevent a similar situation from occurring in the 
> future.
> (2) I don't think that the mechanism is appropriately specified.  If we 
> used the appeals mechanism in 2026, there is already a definition and 
> some practical history.  I understand there is some objection to using 
> that mechanism, but if we want to invent a new one, then I think we need 
> to specify it so that a member of he community (not just I* members) 
> could actually use it.
> Here is a stab at some alternative wording...
>
> ------------------------------------------------------
> 3.5 Decision review
>
> In the case where someone believes that a decision of the IAD or the IAOC
> he or she may ask for a formal review of the decision by sending e-mail
> to the IAOC chair.  The request for review is addressed to the IAOC, and
> should include details of the decision that is being reviewed, an 
> explanation
> of why the decision should be reviewed, and a suggestion for what action
> should be taken to rectify the situation.  All requests for review will be
> published publicly on the IAOC web site.
>
> It is up to the IAOC to determine what level of formal review is required
> based on the specifics of the request for review.  However, the IAOC is
> expected to make some public response to a request for review within
> 90 days of the request, indicating the findings of the review.
>
> If the IAOC finds that an incorrect or unfair decision was made, it will be
> up to  the IAOC to decide what type of action, if any, makes sense as a
> result.  In many cases, it may not be possible or practical to change the
> decision (due to signed contracts or business implications), but the IAOC
> may choose to make changes to its policies or practices to avoid similar
> mistakes in the future or may simply wish to acknowledge that  a mistake
> was made and learn from the error.
>
> If a person believes that his or her request for review was not handled
> properly or fairly by the IAOC, he or she may escalate the request to the
> IESG by sending mail to the IETF chair.  The IESG will consider the IAOC's
> response and may take one of three actions:  (1) indicate that the decision
> was properly reviewed and the IAOC's response was fair, (2) state why
> the review was improper or unfair and offer advice to the IAOC
> regarding what type of response or action would be justified, or (3)
> determine that there is a problem with the rules governing the IAOC and
> propose changes to this document (or other BCPs) to the IETF
> community.  In no case, may the IESG reverse or change a decision of
> the IAOC or make a direct change to the IAOC's operating policies.
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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