Michael StJohns <mstjohns(_at_)comcast(_dot_)net> wrote:
Has either or both of the ISOC and IETF trust lawyers reviewed this,
especially section 5?
As of the start of yesterday's telechat, Jari held a DISCUSS awaiting
such a review.
If so, would you please provide the written evaluation that indicates
they see no issue with respect to IETF liability should the Ombudsman
actually attempt to exclude someone from the face to face or online
sessions?
+1
I'm still in great opposition to this document
-1
as I believe Section 5 provides too broad a palate of "remedies" without
appropriate checks and balances on the system.
+1
I find it worrisome that a Respondent is prohibited from requiring
public review of the process which led to a decision to exclude him/her.
(Obviously the Reporter is entitled to privacy; but a person being
excluded should have some option to request that the exclusion be
publicly shown to not be arbitrary. This seems to be lacking.)
It's unclear that what actual recourse the IETF has if the target of
the remedies simply chooses to ignore the directions of the OBs.
This, too: I fail to understand how an exclusion would be enforced.
... Since this is targeted for a BCP, the supporting documentation needs
to be part of the approval package.
+0
I think this last statement needs a public response.
--
John Leslie <john(_at_)jlc(_dot_)net>