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 think this is essentially right. That is, it makes no sense to
appeal to ISOC that "the process itself was unfair and has failed to
produce a proper result", if there wasn't first an appeal on actual
substance that didn't result in the appropriate outcome.
But, technically, I would not expect the appeal to the IESG/IAB and
the one to the ISOC to be exactly the same. In the former case, the
appeal is presumably on actual decisions and actions made in WGs, by
the IESG, etc. In the latter case, the argument is much more about the
process itself (and how it failed to "protect the rights of all
parties in a fair and open Internet Standards Process" as indicated in
2026) and is less focussed on the details that led to the original
appeal.
Thomas
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf