The decision that could be appealed is the IAOC's approval of the IAD decision - a subtle difference, but an important one; the appeal would have to be based on arguing that the IAOC did not follow the correct steps in evaluating the decision.
The principle that "decisions should be appealable" is one that we have as part of IETF tradition; most of the time, it has served (I think) as a pressure valve - after a decision has been appealed, the decision is (usually) not significantly changed, but all parties involved know that the question has been looked at seriously. (And occasionally, decisions have been found to be wrong and have been reversed - sometimes with the active approval of the person who made the original decision...)
In the case where (for instance) the IAOC says that "enough information has been published about finances", and there are many people feeling that they don't have enough information to judge whether the IASA finances are sound (for instance), it seems sensible to be able to "ask someone else to look at it" rather than to go to the extreme of recalling the IAOC.
Nit: I think we should remove "decisions of IAOC members". As currently written, IAOC members have no individual power or responsibility; all decisions are IAOC decisions - and I think it should remain that way.
--On 1. desember 2004 23:06 -0500 Scott Bradner <sob@xxxxxxxxxxx> 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
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)
Scott
_______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf