On 1/19/2005 05:47, Harald Tveit Alvestrand allegedly wrote:
Trying to close this item, which is not resolved in the -04 draft:
I believe that the list discussion has converged on very rough consensus (Sam and Avri being the people who worry that we're building a DoS attack defense that we don't need, but Brian, Scott and John Klensin, at least, strongly arguing that we need that mechanism) on the following text, which I suggested on Jan 13, replacing the last 3 paragraphs of section 3.4:
------------------------------------------------------
3.5 Decision review
In the case where someone questions a decision of the IAD or the IAOC, he or she may ask for a formal review of the decision.
The request for review is addressed to the person or body that made the decision. It is up to that body to decide to make a response, and on the form of a response.
The IAD is required to respond to requests for a review from the IAOC, and the IAOC is required to respond to requests for a review of a decision from the IAB or from the IESG.
If members of the community feel that they are unjustly denied a response to a request for review, they may ask the IAB or the IESG to make the request on their behalf.
Answered requests for review and their responses are made public. ------------------------------------------------------- Can we live with this?
I think you should just replace the 3rd from last paragraph (on appeals) and keep the last two. The middle paragraph gives guidance for what happens after a review, and I recall the last paragraph was wanted by someone for clarification.
If an individual requests a review, receives a response, and in the individual's opinion there is a problem, what does the individual do? Let's finish the state machine. Add a sentence -- I suggest we say the individual asks the IAB/IESG for "action", where "action" is undefined here, but probably means that they make a request for a review themselves.
I like not requiring that all requests for review be made public, in line with allowing IAD/IAOC to shake off DoS attacks.
Putting it all together, I propose:
3.5 Decision review
In the case where someone questions a decision of the IAD or the IAOC, he or she may ask for a formal review of the decision.
The request for review is addressed to the person or body that made the decision. It is up to that body to decide to make a response, and on the form of a response.
The IAD is required to respond to requests for a review from the IAOC, and the IAOC is required to respond to requests for a review of a decision from the IAB or from the IESG.
If the IESG, IAB or the ISOC Board of Trustees find that procedures have been violated, they may advise the IAOC, but do not have authority to overturn or change a decision of the IAOC.
If members of the community feel that they are unjustly denied a response to a request for review, they may ask the IAB or the IESG to make the request on their behalf. If members of the community receive a response to a request for review, and believe that procedures have been violated, they may ask the IAB or the IESG to take further action.
Answered requests for review and their responses are made public.
The IAOC plays no role in appeals of WG Chair, IESG, or IAB decisions.
_______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf