Appeal by JFC Morfin dated 2006-02-17 ====================================== http://www.ietf.org/IESG/APPEALS/morfin-appeal-against-appeal.txt This is an appeal against the IESG's decision to issue a Last Call for a PR-action against Mr Morfin on 2006-01-18 at http://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf/current/msg40011.html The IESG decided not to consider this appeal until after deciding the PR-action, and then not to do so until Mr Morfin's expected appeal against the PR-action. 1. The appeal asserts that RFC 3683 (BCP 83) is illegal, and specifically in conflict with certain provisions of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. In particular it cites Article 10 (right to public hearing), 11 (presumption of innocence), 12 (privacy and reputation), 19 (freedom of expression) and 2 (non-discrimination). Firstly, any appeal against the approval of RFC 3683 was due within two months of that approval, i.e. by February 17, 2004. Secondly, the IESG believes that the Universal Declaration of Human Rights does not apply to the IETF's internal rules. IETF participants are assumed to be aware of IETF process rules before choosing to participate, and their participation is voluntary. This part of the appeal is therefore rejected. 2. The appeal asserts that a PR-action can be a DoS against the IESG and the participant concerned. Mr Morfin feels he is being used "as a fireship" against the IESG. The PR-action has triggered disruptive threads on the IETF list "since October." [Factual interpolation - this presumably refers to the discussion launched by Harald Alvestrand, since the IESG's Last Call took place in January.] It asserts that rather than disrupting discussions "I submit that I actually drove the consensus process (against me in most of the cases)." It asserts "I have the distinctive feeling that the PR-action is actually to protect the ietf-languages@alvestrand.no from being disbanded in application of the RFC 3066 Bis." The IESG believes this is irrelevant to whether the IESG acted correctly in this case. Also, one should not confuse the email generated by the PR-action Last Call (which was not a large fraction of IESG email during the Last Call) with prior email in the community. The amount of email generated by the Last Call really does not amount to a DOS attack. 3. The appeal asserts certain discrepancies: 3.1. The Last Call does not quote Harald Alvestrand's request. The IESG finds this irrelevant. The Last Call contained specific pointers to the alleged disruptive behavior. It did not depend on Harald Alvestrand's request. 3.2. No serious investigation on the allegations of that request has been carried out. This was unnecessary for the reason just given. The Last Call stood alone. 3.3. The rationale of PR-action is not what I did, but actions undertaken against me by others. This is factually incorrect: again, the Last Call contained specific pointers to the alleged disruptive behavior. 3.4. Prior posting suspensions from both LTRU (a WG list) and ietf-languages (a non-WG list) are cited. They are both IETF related lists. RFC 3683 is not specific to WG mailing lists. 3.5. ietf-languages@alvestrand.no is not clearly an IETF list. This is factually incorrect; it is functionally equivalent to the list mentioned in RFC 3066. In conclusion the IESG finds no defect in its decision to issue a Last Call for a PR-action against Mr Morfin on 2006-01-18, and rejects this appeal. _______________________________________________ IETF-Announce@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf-announce
