Scott Bradner wrote:
draft-ietf-iasa-bcp-01 section 3.5 goes on to say:
Decisions of IAOC members or the entire IAOC are subject to appeal
using the procedures described in RFC 2026 [RFC2026]. Appeals of
IAOC decisions go first to the IESG, then continue up the chain as
necessary to the IAB and the ISOC Board of Trustees.
I do not like this
the way its written a random person could appeal the awarding of a
contract to vendor and thereby potentially perpetrating a denial of
service on the IETF while the appeal process was being followed through
Correct. Except that it wouldn't be a random person; it would
be a losing bidder. This is a weak spot.
I do not know that there are no decisions of the IAOC members or the
entire IAOC that could be appeled usefully but I can not think of one
offhand - I think this clase should be removed - or significantally
restricted in what can be appealed (and I'd say a null set)
But on the other hand we need checks and balances against an IAOC
that is making mistakes. The question is (and it's listed as an open
issue) whether the recall procedure in section 4 is enough.
Maybe we need a much more restricted right of appeal. Strawperson:
Decisions of the IAOC are subject to appeal exclusively on the grounds
that they have materially damaged correct execution of the IETF
standards process [RFC2026]. They follow the appeals process
applicable to the standards process. Matters outside the standards
process such as staff, budget and contractual matters are not subject
to such appeal.
Brian
_______________________________________________
Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf