>>>>> "Eric" == Eric Rescorla <ekr@xxxxxxxx> writes:
Eric> bad decisions we have a mechanism for unseating them.
Eric> 3. Decisions of the IAOC should be appealable (following the
Eric> usual 2026 appeal chain) on the sole grounds that the IASA's
Eric> processes were not followed. Those decisions should NOT be
Eric> appealable on the grounds that the decisions were simply bad
Eric> ones.
Eric> I recognize that point (3) above is somewhat controversial,
Eric> so I'll attempt to justify it a bit. The simple fact is that
Eric> the IASA (both IAD and IAOC) will be constantly making
Eric> business decisions and if we are to keep the job manageable
Eric> (and in the case of IAD keep the costs down) they have to
Eric> know that they will not be constantly second-guessed by the
Eric> community on what kind of cookies they purchased.
I agree so far.
However people seem to be making a jump I don't agree with from they
should not be constantly second-guessed to they should never be
second-guessed. The problem with constant second-guessing is that it
takes up too much time and resources, not that it doesn't sometimes
improve quality of decisions. So, my goal is to find the minimal
restriction that prevents a resource consumption attack against the
IASA in practice. I'd prefer to err on the side of allowing a
resource consumption attack and fixing it later than on the side of
being too restrictive in what review we allow.
Eric> If the
Eric> community feels very strongly that the wrong kind of cookies
Eric> were purchased then they can ask for a rule demanding
Eric> chocolate chip, and in the worst case pass a chocolate chip
Eric> cookie RFC.
That's one way to look at it. And if that's the only way we can make
forward progress it's better than not making forward progress.
Eric> There's a parallel here in the RFC 2026 appeals
Eric> process. While the IAB and IESG can review a decision both
Eric> for process violations AND for technical merit, the ISOC BOT
Eric> is extremely constrained in that it can only provide limited
Eric> procedural review (S 6.5.3)
Eric> Further recourse is available only in cases in which the
Eric> procedures themselves (i.e., the procedures described in
Eric> this document) are claimed to be inadequate or insufficient
Eric> to the protection of the rights of all parties in a fair and
Eric> open Internet Standards Process. Claims on this basis may
Eric> be made to the Internet Society Board of Trustees. The
Eric> President of the Internet Society shall acknowledge such an
Eric> appeal within two weeks, and shall at the time of
Eric> acknowledgment advise the petitioner of the expected
Eric> duration of the Trustees' review of the appeal. The
Eric> Trustees shall review the situation in a manner of its own
Eric> choosing and report to the IETF on the outcome of its
Eric> review.
Eric> The Trustees' decision upon completion of their review
Eric> shall be final with respect to all aspects of the dispute.
Eric> It seems to me that this is a good model to follow for IASA.
OK. I don't like this model because I don't believe it is minimal
restrictive. I'd like to cite another parallel from RFC 2026. Under
RFC 2026 section 6.5, the IAB does not have the power to assert a
specific decision, only to void an existing decision. I'd rather see
limits on what the results of a review can be than on the subject
matter of reviews. I think that is a more minimal restriction and
believe it will be sufficient to avoid DOS concerns.
--Sam
_______________________________________________
Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
