-----Original Message-----
From: Brian E Carpenter <brc(_at_)zurich(_dot_)ibm(_dot_)com>
Sent: Jul 18, 2006 5:13 AM
To: Pete Resnick <presnick(_at_)qualcomm(_dot_)com>
Cc: Frank Ellermann <nobody(_at_)xyzzy(_dot_)claranet(_dot_)de>,
ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
Subject: Re: Response to the Appeal by [...]
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.
The problem is that the language of the control is not specific to when it is
envoked and as such it is open to others interpetations as well. The problem
Brian is to write control's in language that is not open to interpretation and
this IETF has failed miserably at that.
Virtually all the IETF's control process documents have a number of holes in
each control process such that they are neither reliable or accountable for
anything below them. This is one of the real issues moving forward and needs to
be corrected.
Todd Glassey as an Auditor
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. It is then the
appellant's right to decide whether to take the appeal
further.
Brian
Pete Resnick wrote:
On 7/17/06 at 8:52 PM +0200, Frank Ellermann wrote:
Pete Resnick wrote:
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.
The question then shifts from "is there a problem with 'this'
(whatever, here 3683) document" to "is there a general problem with
the standards process up to and including the IAB appeal".
No. In this particular case, the appeal was specifically about the
fairness of the procedure as documented in RFC 3683, not about the
process in adopting 3683. See
<http://www.ietf.org/IESG/APPEALS/morfin-appeal-against-appeal.txt>
where it says:
"I am not interested in this part in the conformance of the IESG
procedure with RFC 3683, nor in the particulars of the case. They are
addressed in other parts. I am interested in the general conformance of
RFC 3683 (as experimented through this case) with the Human Rights. From
my experience RFC 3863 PR-actions are in violation of the most
elementary rights of the persons."
RFC 2026 is pretty plain on this. Section 6.5 allows for 3 kinds of
appeals:
- 6.5.1 says that you can appeal a WG decision on the grounds that your
view hasn't been heard or it's technically wrong. In that case, 6.5.1
says the appeal goes WG-chair->AD->IESG->IAB->end.
- 6.5.2 says that you can appeal an IESG action on the grounds that it
didn't follow the process. In that case, 6.5.2 says the appeal goes
IESG-chair->IESG->IAB->end.
- 6.5.3 says that you can appeal on the grounds that the procedures
themselves are unfair. In that case, 6.5.3 says the appeal goes
ISOC-BoT->end.
This appeal was (as stated by the appellant) clearly one of type 6.5.3.
It (and appeals like it) should therefore be rejected without
consideration by the IESG or the IAB. The appellant should bring them
directly to the ISOC Board of Trustees. (*Do not pass Go. Do not collect
$200.*)
pr
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf