Margaret Wasserman wrote:
Hmm. I think this bothers me a lot unless
a) unsuccessful bidders and their agents
and
b) unsuccessful job candidates
are explicitly excluded. Otherwise, every time
the IASA awards a contract or hires somebody, they are
exposed to public attack by the unsuccessful.
In general, people do not choose to raise a public stink when they are
not hired for a job or are not chosen as a contractor, perhaps due to a
lack of desire to air those facts in public.
But, if we do have someone who wants to raise a stink and/or waste IETF
resources over that type of issue, I don't think that the lack of a
formal review process would stop them. In fact, the lack of a
reasonable way of dealing with this type of disagreement within the IETF
context might lead people to take legal action, which would be even
worse (more time consuming, expensive, damaging).
I think that is not really a concern. If someone has a grievance that
is serious enough for them to hire a lawyer to make a complaint, no
words in an RFC will stop them. But the right words in an RFC will allow
the IAD to say:
"If you have any complaints, please contact the IAOC."
[I believe the current words allow this.]
and the IAOC to say, very rapidly,
"We've looked at your complaint and concluded that it is out of scope
of RFC xxxx."
I don't think the current words allow that, because they are very broad.
We could fix this concern quite easily, by adding
Contract awards and employment decisions may not be appealed
using this process.
Brian
_______________________________________________
Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf