This appears to be based on the view that an external legal process is
amenable to the IETF's internal procedures. Of course, it isn't.
Once there is a lawsuit, we are locked in to the procedures and authority of
the courts and to the existing facts leading up to the lawsuit. Post-hoc
efforts to evaluate whether we should have done something differently will be
at the court's discretion, not the discretion of an IETF appeals group like
the IAB or ISOC.
I did not suggest that the IETF leadership only takes action once a lawsuit is
filed. I observed that the particular lawsuit alleged that the SSO did not
follow their own process. The IETF does have a process for resolving such
issues: the internal appeal process. That process will alert the IETF
leadership in time to take corrective actions if needed. Of course, plaintiffs
could sue at any time, but they would have a very hard time arguing in a court
of law that the IETF did not follow its process if they themselves did not use
the recourse afforded by the IETF process.
The lawsuit against the SSO argues a failure to act by the leadership. We don't
know yet whether the lawsuit will succeed, but we can point out many avenues of
actions open to the area directors or the IESG. They can of course send the
offending draft standard to the WG. They can refuse publication. They can
change the WG leadership. They can even dissolve the WG. This is the point
where advice is useful.
-- Christian Huitema
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf