OK Sam -
What do you do after the ISOC refuses to hear an appeal? What oversight is
there? Arbitration? Court? This is a serious question since there is no
reason for the ISOC BOT to actually consent to hear any specific appeal and
by the writing of their own Articles of Incorporation or BOT Actions
that I have read... there is no reason or constraining guideline
forcing them to be this.
So essentially what you have here is a block of text that says "My uncle
will mediate disputes here" with no mediation framework, timeframe,
evidentiary submission or review process, or oversight... and more
importantly no agreement from the Uncle to stand in that role - or any
requirements for its actions as such.\
By the way - why would the IETF figure that something it wrote in IPR or
Network or any other WG would be legally binding on ISOC and its BOT???
Todd
----- Original Message -----
From: "Sam Hartman" <hartmans(_at_)mit(_dot_)edu>
To: "Pete Resnick" <presnick(_at_)qualcomm(_dot_)com>
Cc: "Frank Ellermann" <nobody(_at_)xyzzy(_dot_)claranet(_dot_)de>;
<ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org>
Sent: Thursday, July 20, 2006 8:12 AM
Subject: Re: Response to the Appeal by [...]
"Pete" == Pete Resnick <presnick(_at_)qualcomm(_dot_)com> writes:
Pete> 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.
For which there is no adequately defined process, evidence submission model,
oversight or external recourse defined for either. This is the "Trust me I
wont..." commentary and is silly.
Pete> I simply don't see how it can be read that way, especially
Pete> if you read through 6.5 in its entirely. It probably would
Pete> have caused less confusion if Scott had said "Other than the
Pete> above, the only grounds for appeal are in cases...".
Having read 6.5 in its entirety multiple times, I agree with Brian's
reading not yours.
Brian's reading is also preferable because in cases where the
unfairness of procedures is sufficiently blatent, the ISOC BOT need
not get involved.
Finally, Brian's reading means that the ISOC BOT will have both the
IAB and the IESG's opinions on why the procedures are in fact fair. I
think that is useful input for their process.
--sam
_______________________________________________
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