At 06:25 AM 1/20/2005, Harald Tveit Alvestrand wrote:
--On torsdag, januar 20, 2005 00:00:36 -0500 Michael StJohns
<mstjohns(_at_)mindspring(_dot_)com> wrote:
If you (general plural) really feel this section needs to stand I think
you need to address at least two issues and narrow them substantially:
who has standing to ask for a formal review? and on what specific issues
can the IAOC/IAD be reviewed? If you can't this section needs to go.
For standing you've currently got "someone"... *sigh*
For issues you've got "a decision of the IAD or IAOC" ... *sigh* At a
minimum, I'd explicitly prohibit review of the IADs actions by any body
except the IAOC - direct the review to the IAOC only.
Mike,
the text that I started off this thread with had:
- Standing: Anyone can *ask*, but only the IESG and IAB can demand an answer.
Ok - this has two interesting and potential annoying outcomes. First
outcome is that the IAOC just ignores any non-IESG/IAB query, second
outcome is that the ignoree petitions the IAB/IESG to get their point to be
made and then appeals when the IAB/IESG says no.
- Issues: Any decision. I think this is right - enumerating the issues
that can be reviewed is simply the wrong level of detail for this document.
Let's try it from the other end. Try and list 3 things that can/should be
amenable to review and why. I think you're going to find you can't or that
you're listing things that are so trivial in the extreme that they really
shouldn't be reviewable. If you can list 3 and can show there are
potentially a lot more I'll shut up on this point.
- Who reviews: IAD reviews IAD decisions, IAOC reviews IAOC decisions. The
read "review" as "explain why", not "I override you".
Sorry - that's not what "review" means. In the context, its 2 : to examine
or study again; especially : to reexamine judicially. A body does not
generally "review" its own decisions. It "reconsiders" them. If you mean
explain, then say explain.
The fact that IAOC has oversight of the IAD is actually not mentioned
here; it's mentioned in enough other places.
Of course, Margaret's proposed text is different. But I believe you were
starting off by objecting to the one I wrote - and I'm not sure I
understand how you interpreted what I wrote.
Yes - I'm looking at your text. That was the last consensus text not hers.
Harald
On the general topic of reconsider vs review (and partially on Margaret's
note). If you want to provide a mechanism for "someone" to petition for
reconsideration of a decision that mechanism needs to require the "someone"
to a) describe why they believe the decision was made in error, b) a
proposed remedy (might be as simple as say "yes" instead of "no" but may be
much more complex.). It also needs to set a sunset or statute of
limitations on when these petitions can be submitted.
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf