Margaret Wasserman wrote:
Hi Brian,
At 11:48 AM +0100 1/25/05, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
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.
Are you sure that we have consensus on this?
Between me and Sam, apparently :-)
... It seems to me that some
people would like the IAB/IESG to be able to force the re-consideration
of an IAOC decision, but not for other IETF participants to have any way
to effectively question the IAOC. At least, that is how most of the
recent suggestions read to me. People don't even seem to have picked up
on my concern that the current text doesn't say who to contact if you do
want a decision reviewed, making the process difficult and intimidating
for anyone who isn't embroiled in IETF politics.
I thought it was fairly clear that you should start with the IAOC (just
like you start with the WG for a standards appeal).
Maybe it would help (in getting this issue closed) if we could figure
out what we want in general terms and then try to draft the text? Mixing
basic conceptual arguments with text tuning within multiple (ever
changing) camps doesn't seem to be getting us anywhere.
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.
I agree with that intent. IMO the text in draft-ietf-iasa-bcp-04.txt
has some defects, but is mainly consistent with that intent.
[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).
iaoc(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org? draft-ietf-iasa-bcp-04.txt says 'starting with the
IESG'
which actually seems wrong - the review should start right with the
IAOC and then be escalated if necessary.
(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.
Yes, but we need to make sure that the text more or less excludes
appeals against the wrong kind of cookies as well as against
commercial decisions.
(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".
Sure, that is analagous to appeals under 2026
(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.
I see no reason not to allow the whole appeal chain, again by analogy
with 2026.
(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.
Exactly right.
And since fewer words are better, maybe we should look for the minimum
changes to the words in draft-ietf-iasa-bcp-04.txt to achieve these
goals.
Brian
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf