I like this formulation.
A couple of suggested tweaks, inline:
Margaret Wasserman wrote:
Remove the current sections 3.5 and 3.6 and replace them with a new
section 3.5:
3.5 Review and Appeal of IAD and IAOC Decision
The IAOC is directly accountable to the IETF community for the
performance of the IASA. In order to achieve this, the IAOC and IAD
will ensure that guidelines are developed for regular operational
decision making. Where appropriate, these guidelines should be
developed with public input. In all cases, they must be made public.
Additionally, the IASA should ensure there are reported objective
performance metrics for all IETF administrative support activities.
In the case where someone questions that a decision or action of the IAD
or the IAOC has been undertaken in accordance with IETF BCPs or
IASA operational guidelines (including the creation and maintenance
of an appropriate set of operational guidelines), he or she may ask the
IAOC for a formal review of the decision or action.
The request for review is addressed to the IAOC chair and should include
a description of the decision or action to be reviewed, an
explanation of
how the decision or action violates the BCPs or operational
guidelines, and
a suggestion for how the situation could be rectified. All requests
for review
will be publicly posted, and the IAOC is expected to respond to these
requests within a reasonable period, typically within 90 days. It is
up to
the IAOC to determine what type of review and response is required,
based
on the nature of the review request. Based on the results of the
review,
the IAOC may choose to overturn their own decision and/or to change
their
operational guidelines to prevent further misunderstandings.
If a member of the community is not satisfied with the IAOC's
response to
his or her review request, he or she may escalate the issue by appealing
the decision or action to the IESG, using the appeals procedures
outlined
in RFC 2026 [RFC2026]. If he or she is not satisfied with the IESG
response, he or she can escalate the issue to the IAB and on the ISOC
Board of Trustees, as described in RFC 2026.
The IESG, IAB or ISOC BoT will review the decision of the IAD or IAOC
I'm stumbling over the "IESG, IAB or ISOC BoT". I understand you're
saying "whichever it is at this level of the appeal", but it comes off
sounding a bit like "whoever gets around to replying".
Perhaps it could be rewritten as:
"The reviewing body (IESG, IAB or ISOC BoT, as appropriate) will ..."
and then subsequent instances of "IESG, IAB..." would be replaced
with "the reviewing body"?
to determine whether it was made in accordance with existing BCPs and
operational guidelines. As a result of this review, the IESG, IAB or
ISOC
BoT may decide to initiate changes to the BCPs governing IAOC actions.
I suggest spelling out the "initiate changes" --
"...may decide to initiate the required public consensus process to
change the BCPs..."
They may also advise the IAOC to modify existing operational guidelines
to avoid similar issues in the future and/or may advise the IAOC to
re-consider their decision or action.
In exceptional cases, when no other recourse seems reasonable, the
IESG,
IAB or ISOC BoT may overturn or reverse a non-binding decision or
action
of the IAOC. This should be done after careful consideration and
consultation with the IAOC regarding the ramifications of this
action. In
no circumstances may the IESG or IAB overturn a decision of the IAOC
that involves a binding contract or overturn a personnel-related
action (such
as hiring, firing, promotion, demotion, performance reviews, salary
adjustments,
etc.).
[The last paragraph is likely to be the most controversial, as I am not
sure that
we have consensus that the IAB or IESG should be able to overturn or
reverse
a decision or action of the IAOC at all.]
Leslie.
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf