I do not think that the ISOC BoT would be constrained to providing advice
in the situation you describe. It would, however, have to say "this is an
actiobn we take because we have a responsibility for ISOC, not because
we're investigating this single issue".
While this sounds a lot like "I am going to tell myself that I should do
something about this issue, then I'll turn around and do it", I think it is
still the right thing to do.
The ISOC BoT has two very distinct roles - appeal path and financial
oversight - and I think it's definitely the right thing for them to process
the appeal, and then take action on what's discovered as a separate action.
I'll reply to the processing discussion in another message.
Harald
--On fredag, februar 11, 2005 14:10:16 -0500 Margaret Wasserman
<margaret(_at_)thingmagic(_dot_)com> wrote:
Hi Harald,
At 5:02 PM +0100 2/11/05, Harald Tveit Alvestrand wrote:
In no circumstances may the IAB or
ISOC Board of Trustees 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.) as a result of an appeal.
So, if a person appeals a decision of the IAD or IAOC to the ISOC Board
and, in the course of investigating that appeal, the ISOC Board
determines that a contract or personnel decision violates ISOC's
accounting policies, violates the laws of the country most likely to have
jurisdiction and/or could result in substantial liability for ISOC (these
are the types of exceptional situations that I could envision falling
under this clause) could the ISOC Board overturn the decision? Or would
the ISOC Board be constrained to providing "advice" to the IAOC because
this issue was discovered as the result of an appeal?
I am not comfortable with the idea that the ISOC Board would be
constrained to providing advice in this (extremely unlikely) situation,
since the IAOC does not have responsibility to uphold ISOC policy, ensure
that ISOC conducts its business in a legal manner and/or protect ISOC
from liability -- the ISOC Board does.
My understanding of the justification for why the IAB should not be able
to mess with contracts or personnel decisions is that the IAB is not
chosen for business expertise and therefore might lack the expertise to
fully understand the implications of changing those decisions. I
certainly hope that isn't true of the ISOC Board (present company
excepted, of course).
I'm also somewhat uncomfortable with the process that is resulting in
these changes (the ones that I have suggested, as well as the ones that I
don't like)... We seem to be changing the document quite frequently
(faster than I feel I can keep up, sometimes multiple times between
actual revisions), and many of these changes are being made based on the
comments of one or two people. In some cases (not this one) we are
making changes to text that has been stable in the document for months.
Are you sure that everyone who cares about this process is keeping up
with these changes? Is there some plan for making sure that everyone is
still in-sync on a final version? I think that an IETF LC is supposed to
serve that purpose, but we seem to have already held ours...
Margaret
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf