Re: Rough consensus? #425 3.5

hi,

I generally agree with these principles with some comments:

in (2) I think that the review request need to be addressed to the 
chair of the respective body.  I think the language of 2026 can be 
adapted as to contents.
in (5), I think the appeals should have the full chain of appeals.  I 
know 'at least one level' does include the chain, but I think it is 
important to be able to appeal all the way to the ISOC BoT.
in (6), I agree that decisions that involve contractual obligations 
mustn't be overturned, but I have a problem with saying that there are 
no decisions that can be overturned.

a.

On 25 jan 2005, at 07.29, Margaret Wasserman wrote:
> So, I'll take a shot at a few things attributes that I think would be 
> good in a review process:
> (1) I agree with you that we do not want a review process (whether 
> invoked by an individual or by the IAB and IESG) that can overturn a 
> contract award or hiring decision after that decision is made.  The 
> current proposed text (I think that the latest was from Leslie) makes 
> the community impotent, without properly restricting the review 
> requests from the IAB/IESG, IMO.
> [N.B.  I do hope that the IAOC will run an open RFP process for most 
> (or all?) contracts, and that the process will include a public 
> comment stage after the IAOC chooses a potential winner, so that there 
> will be an opportunity for the community to raise concerns (if any) 
> before it is too late.  Given recent posts, I don't think that the 
> IASA-TT/IAOC is likely to take us in this direction within the next 
> year, but I do hope that we get there eventually.]
> (2) I think that the review process should be well-enough specified 
> that a person who is not  a (past or present) member of the I* could 
> use it.  This means that it needs to say where you send a review 
> request, how you unambiguously identify a formal review request and 
> what a review request should contain.  This should be at least at the 
> level of detail of the RFC 2026 appeals process (or even a bit more 
> detailed, as folks seem to find that process confusing enough that 
> they don't often get it right).
> (3) I think that review requests should be limited to situations where 
> the IAOC violates written procedures (their own or the IASA BCP) 
> and/or makes a decision that is against the best interests of the 
> IETF.  The request for review should be specific about what procedure 
> was violated and/or how a specific decision runs against the IETF's 
> interests.
> (4) Personally, I think that any member of the community (and yes, I 
> understand that means the general public) should be able to make a 
> formal review request and expect to get a response from the IAOC 
> within a reasonable time period (~90 days).  I do not think the 
> response needs to be a lengthy hearing, or a complex legal document. 
> But, I think that we should have a review process, open to everyone, 
> where a response is mandated.  The response could be:  "We looked into 
> this decision, and we didn't find anything irregular about the 
> decision or about how it was reached".
> (5) I think that there should be at least one level of escalation 
> possible if the person requesting a review does not receive a 
> satisfactory response from the IAOC (I had suggested that this would 
> go to the IESG).  I don't think that the person should have to 
> persuade the IAB or IESG to act on his/her behalf (which is another 
> way in which the current process is really only open to political 
> insiders), I think that the IESG (or whoever we use as the next level 
> lf escalation) should be required to consider the IAOC's response and 
> respond to the escalated review within a reasonable timeframe.
> (6) I do not think that we want the IAB or IESG (or anyone else) to be 
> able to overturn a decision of the IAOC, only to advise the IAOC that 
> they believe that an incorrect decision was made.
> Do folks agree with these thoughts?  Are there other basic ideas that 
> should be included?
> Margaret
>
>
>
> At 11:48 AM +0100 1/25/05, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
> > Sam Hartman wrote:
> > > > > > > > "Brian" == Brian E Carpenter <brc(_at_)zurich(_dot_)ibm(_dot_)com> writes:
> > >      Brian> Reviewing procedures is fine. Reviewing specific awards
> > >      Brian> isn't, IMHO, which is all I intended my words to exclude.
> > >  Attempting to undo a specific award once things are signed (or
> > >  delaying signing) is generally unacceptable.  Reviewing a specific
> > >  award to come to conclusions like "we failed to follow our
> > >  procedures," is definitely problematic but IMHO sometimes necessary.
> > >  Such reviews need to be handled with great care: some of the data 
> > > used
> > >  to make the decision may not be available to the reviewing body and
> > >  much of the data must not become public.  Also, if you conclude that
> > >  you did follow the wrong procedures in a specific incident but are
> > >  stuck with the contract because it is already signed, that creates 
> > > all
> > >  sorts of bad feelings and potential liability.
> > Exactly. And we need to be sure that the "appeals" text allows for
> > review of procedures, including the kind of "case study" you suggest,
> > without allowing the appeal procedure to be used for commercial
> > food-fights. It's tricky to get that exactly right.
> >
> >    Brian
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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