On Fri, Jan 28, 2005 03:02:00PM +0100, Harald Tveit Alvestrand
allegedly wrote:
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
violates -> is presumed to violate
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.
or may do nothing, or may do a whole lot of other things in between.
Providing this choice implies that one of these two must be chosen.
Is this sentence necessary? Does anything prohibit them from doing
either of these things if the sentence is removed?
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.).
In another message, I have suggested removing the last paragraph -
but it's not a show-stopper for me to leave it in. Comments?
Either way.
Thanks ... Scott (Brim)
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf