--On Wednesday, 22 December, 2004 21:51 +0100 Harald Tveit
Alvestrand <harald@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> John,
>
> I've probably seen enough versions of enough issues that I'm
> more than a little spaced out...... but I think your proposal
> looks very much like the in-draft version of the appeals
> procedure, with three differences:
>
> - Not limited to procedure, and not limited to the IAOC
> - Abandoning the "chain" model of "if you don't like one
> decision, try again" that the current appeal structure has
> - Not using the word "appeal"
>
> I like all of those properties, and it should be a small twist
> of language (starting from the text in the draft, not the most
> recent suggestion) to make it come out that way.
> But I'm not sure I'm reading your words correctly, so better
> double-check....
A fascinating question, actually. I think you are reading my
words correctly and that, by happy coincidence, the words that
are now in the draft are fairly easily adapted.
But the principles are more important than the words, and I
think this is a profound change in principles. It is, I think,
a significant change to say "if you expect the IAOC model to
succeed,
* the IETF has got to keep its hands off the day-to-day
decisions, even when they seem wrong
* the IESG and IAB need to be prohibited structurally
from micromanaging, or managing at all, beyond the
degree that the IAOC wants to permit. They supply
input, they make requests, but decisions rest on the
IAOC side of the wall and stay there, with the only
_real_ recourse being to fire the IAOC
and then to figure out a way to implement those principles.
john
_______________________________________________
Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf