Steve's email caused me to think, but first let me say that this should not be
in the BCP. Is it a correct assumption to think that the IASA will give an
update at every IETF plenary, along the lines of IANA and the RFC Editor? I
would hope so.
John L.
-- original message --
Subject: Re: Rough consensus? #425 3.5
From: "Steve Crocker" <steve(_at_)stevecrocker(_dot_)com>
Date: 01/19/2005 6:03 pm
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
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf