On 7/10/06 at 2:05 PM -0400, IESG Secretary wrote:
1. The appeal asserts that RFC 3683 (BCP 83) is illegal, and
specifically in conflict with certain provisions of the Universal
Declaration of Human Rights. In particular it cites Article 10
(right to public hearing), 11 (presumption of innocence), 12
(privacy and reputation), 19 (freedom of expression) and 2
(non-discrimination).
Firstly, any appeal against the approval of RFC 3683 was due within
two months of that approval, i.e. by February 17, 2004.
Secondly, the IESG believes that the Universal Declaration of Human
Rights does not apply to the IETF's internal rules. IETF
participants are assumed to be aware of IETF process rules before
choosing to participate, and their participation is voluntary.
This part of the appeal is therefore rejected.
I think the IESG was correct to reject this part of the appeal, but I
believe they rejected it for the wrong reason. The IESG simply should
have not considered this part of the appeal at all. RFC 2026, section
6.5.3 is clearly applicable on this point:
6.5.3 Questions of Applicable Procedure
Further recourse is available only in cases in which the procedures
themselves (i.e., the procedures described in this document) are
claimed to be inadequate or insufficient to the protection of the
rights of all parties in a fair and open Internet Standards Process.
Claims on this basis may be made to the Internet Society Board of
Trustees. The President of the Internet Society shall acknowledge
such an appeal within two weeks, and shall at the time of
acknowledgment advise the petitioner of the expected duration of the
Trustees' review of the appeal. The Trustees shall review the
situation in a manner of its own choosing and report to the IETF on
the outcome of its review.
Claims that RFC 3683 (a BCP, a document that has presumably already
passed community consensus) is unfair ought not be taken up by the
IESG or the IAB, but can only be taken up by the ISOC Board.
Appeals of this sort should not be brought to the IESG (or the IAB).
I suggest that the IESG and the IAB always decline to decide such
issues in the future should similar appeals come up.
pr
--
Pete Resnick <http://www.qualcomm.com/~presnick/>
QUALCOMM Incorporated
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf