>>>>> "Harald" == Harald Tveit Alvestrand <harald@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
Harald> In some other argument in some alternate universe, I said
Harald> about the appeals issue:
>> I see three alternatives:
>>
>> - Individual decisions of the IAOC cannot be appealed/reviewed
>> by anyone - We invent an entirely new process from scratch just
>> for IAOC matters - We funnel appeals against IAOC into the
>> existing appeals process
>>
>> I dislike the first and second choices (the first because it
>> raises the risk that one will have to resort to the recall
>> "control"; the second because inventing new process mechanism
>> is *hard*), so by Hobson's choice, I like the third.
Harald> A theory....
I agree. In decreasing order of preference:
1) Allow decisions to be appealed but allow the bodies to which
appeals are made quickly decide not to accept an appeal and to
establish procedures for avoiding being swamped with appeals.
2) Allow appeals to be made but set some bar for an appeal; perhaps
appeals from IAOC members are always accepted, but appeals from the
community require say 10 signatures.
3) Significantly limit appeals process; restrictions on only
appealing process issues, appeals are advisory, etc.
I'd rather end up having to revise the appeals process because it is a
denial of service than to regret not having the mechanism when it is
needed.
We do probably want text in the document that makes it clear decisions
cannot be overturned once steps like signing contracts or hiring
people have happened.
--Sam
_______________________________________________
Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf