Hi Harald et al -
I apologize for chiming in on this so late, but I had hopes it would get
worked out without me pushing over apple carts.
I can't support this and I recommend deleting this section in its entirety.
My cut on this:
The decisions of the IAD should be subject to review (and in some cases
ratification) ONLY by the IAOC.
The decisions of the IAOC should not be subject to further review by the
IETF at large. The proper venue for expressing tangible displeasure with a
decision is during the appointment and reappointment process. (Note, I'm
not precluding pre-decision comment by the community at large, and I
encourage the IAOC to seek such comment where appropriate but once the
decision is made its time to stop whining and get on with things)
The decisions of the IAOC must be publicly documented to include voting
records for each formal action.
The IAOC and IAD must accept public or private comment but there is no
requirement to either respond or comment on such missives.
The IAOC and IAD should not be subject to the IETF appeals process. The
appropriate venue for egregious enough complaints on the commercial side is
the legal system or the recall process.
My reasoning:
The IAD and IAOC are making commercial (as opposed to standards) decisions
and the result of that may be contracts or other commercial relationships.
Its inappropriate in the extreme to insert a third (or fourth or fifth)
party into that relationship.
The IAD/IAOC relationship is going to be somewhat one of employee/employer
and its inappropriate to insert external parties into that relationship.
The documentation requirement is so that when the appointment process
happens there will be some audit trail as to who did what to whom.
The IETF appeals process is not appropriate for a commercial action. A
standards action may adversely affect competitors across a broad spectrum
of companies. This commercial action only affects the bidders or winners.
Please, let's get the IETF out of the metaphorical administrative back seat
and get them back to doing what they do well - technology.
At 05:47 AM 1/19/2005, 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