ietf
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: Response to the Appeal by [...]

2006-07-20 12:37:33
Ted - I have no problem on there being a defined and solid dispute
resolution process and a cap to it in the IETF - the problem is that the one
that is in place now has so many holes in it and so little oversight that
the abuse that most turn away from runs rampant in the IETF and the one that
is there doesn't work.

The point is that the model that is documented here specifies things that
are not in place and that makes the document 'ineffectual' in a contract
sense.

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Theodore Tso" <tytso(_at_)mit(_dot_)edu>
To: "todd glassey" <tglassey(_at_)earthlink(_dot_)net>
Cc: "Sam Hartman" <hartmans(_at_)mit(_dot_)edu>; "Pete Resnick"
<presnick(_at_)qualcomm(_dot_)com>; "Frank Ellermann" 
<nobody(_at_)xyzzy(_dot_)claranet(_dot_)de>;
<ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org>
Sent: Thursday, July 20, 2006 12:16 PM
Subject: Re: Response to the Appeal by [...]


On Thu, Jul 20, 2006 at 11:02:23AM -0700, todd glassey wrote:
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.

What do you do have the the US Supreme Court refuses to hear an
appeal?  What oversight is there?  You can not force the US Supreme
Court to consent to hear anyu specific appeal, after all.....

At the end of the day, there has to be some court of last appeal; it
can't be turtles all the way down.

- Ted


_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf