On Jun 7, 2012, at 6:13 PM, Bradner, Scott wrote:
On Jun 7, 2012, at 7:09 PM, Paul Hoffman wrote:
On May 30, 2012, at 11:22 PM, Eliot Lear wrote:
• It's probably worth adding a word or two about the fact that the ISOC
Board is the final appellate avenue in the standardization process. In
this way it may also make sense to move Section 3.2.1 further back behind
the IAB.
I have heard that as well, but cannot find it in RFC 2026 or any of the RFCs
that update 2026 (3667 3668 3932 3978 3979 5378 5657 5742 6410). It should
only be in the Tao if we can point to where the rule comes from.
see RFC 2026 section 6.5.3
6.5.3 Questions of Applicable Procedure
Further recourse is available only in cases in which the procedures
themselves (i.e., the procedures described in this document) are
claimed to be inadequate or insufficient to the protection of the
rights of all parties in a fair and open Internet Standards Process.
Claims on this basis may be made to the Internet Society Board of
Trustees. The President of the Internet Society shall acknowledge
such an appeal within two weeks, and shall at the time of
acknowledgment advise the petitioner of the expected duration of the
Trustees' review of the appeal. The Trustees shall review the
situation in a manner of its own choosing and report to the IETF on
the outcome of its review.
The Trustees' decision upon completion of their review shall be final
with respect to all aspects of the dispute.
note that the appeal to the ISOC BopT is only if the claim is that the rules
are broken
not the application of the rules
Exactly right. What Eliot said, and others have said, is that the ISOC board is
the "final appellate avenue in the standardization process". That's quite
different than "the rules are broken".
there has never been such an appeal
Happily noted.
--Paul Hoffman