On 7/18/06 at 11:13 AM +0200, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
Speaking only for myself, I have always read the words "Further
recourse is available..." at the beginning of section 6.5.3 of RFC
2026 to mean that an appeal to the ISOC Board can only follow
rejection of an appeal by both the IESG and IAB.
I simply don't see how it can be read that way, especially if you
read through 6.5 in its entirely. It probably would have caused less
confusion if Scott had said "Other than the above, the only grounds
for appeal are in cases...".
Therefore, in my opinion, it is required for the IESG to consider
such grounds for appeal, and to decide whether to accept or reject
them.
I think this is an error, and I urge the IESG and the IAB not to do
so in the future.
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