This is my understanding.
However this rises a problem in cases like RFC 3683. Because in this
case (this what the IESG claims) the delay for appealing the RFC 3863
text is over. This is why I spoke of "RFC 3863 application", the same
as there is usually a text and a running code. In a "BCP" organising
the Internet standard process the "running code" can only come
afterward. This is why I did not appeal against the RFC 3683 but
against the way it was applied (underlining that possible bias would
be discussed separately). Being the first one subject to the "RFC
3863 running code", however the appeal delay against the text is
over, the appeal delay against the way the running code works had
just started.
jfc
At 15:02 19/07/2006, Thomas Narten 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 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
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf