Hi,
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.
I still find the lack of direct accountability to the IETF community
problematic, though I do realize that this does leave two options open
to the community in the case that the IAB or IESG does not decide to
honor someone's request for a review:
- Protest on the IETF list and at plenary and review in the court of
public opinion; i.e resort to public confrontation.
- Appeal of a decision by the IESG to not ask the IAOC for a review.
I am also assuming that since these appeals would always be procedural
they would always be appealable through to the ISOC BoT. So while a
bit contorted, there is a path for accountability for the public.
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.
I do not understand what happens if the IESG/IAB do ask for a review
and the IAOC gives what they consider an inadequate response. Is the
only recourse at that point to initiate a recall? Or to ask the ISOC
BoT to fire the IAD?
I am troubled that at the end of the day recall is the only way to
redress an error that those in office may commit. Since this is such a
large hammer to use, I expect that it will leave the IAOC and IAD free
to act with relative impunity.
I know we will be reviewing the procedures over the years, but
initiating the restructuring without proper mechanisms for
accountability seem, to me, to be a mistake.
a.
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf