Hi Eric,
At 5:40 PM -0800 1/26/05, Eric Rescorla wrote:
With that in mind, I would like to suggest the following principles:
1. The IETF community should have input on the internal rules set by the IASA and the IASA should be required to respond to comments by the community on said rules.
2. While the IASA's behavior should be constrained by BCPs (as it will be constrained by the first one) we should in general refrain from enacting specific internal IASA rules changes by BCP. If it is believed that the IAOC is making bad decisions we have a mechanism for unseating them.
3. Decisions of the IAOC should be appealable (following the usual 2026 appeal chain) on the sole grounds that the IASA's processes were not followed. Those decisions should NOT be appealable on the grounds that the decisions were simply bad ones.
I think that something along these lines could meet all of my "principles". BTW, I don't feel that I have any special right to set the principles for this mechanism, so folks should feel free to add new ones or argue with the ones I put forward...
Your proposal certainly meets the following ones:
(2) It is well-enough specified (here and in RFC 2026) that person who is not a (past or present) member of the I* could use it.
(4) Any member of the community can make a review request (or appeal) and get a response.
(5) There is at least one level of escalation possible. (In fact, there are three.)
Your criteria are different than mine, and therefore there may be some disagreement on:
(3) Review requests should be limited to situations where the IAOC violates written procedures (their own or a BCP) and/or makes a decisions that is against the best interests of the IETF.
You only want to allow appeals based on the fact that a published rule was not followed, and I would like to allow appeals based on both of the above criteria. I don't know how close or how far we are on this... My idea is that the IAOC should not be able to make decisions that are damaging to the IETF without any community recourse, just because there is no written rule that prevents it.
If we are going to use the full appeals chain (which I totally support), I would like to see appeals based on the best interests of the IETF constrained to being escalated to the IESG and IAB (since they are chosen by the IETF) and only allow process-based appeals to be escalated to the ISOC BoT -- much as we do today for technical vs. process appeals of WG decisions. I do not think that it is the ISOC BoT's place to be the ultimate arbiter what is in the best interests of the IETF.
We also seem to have some disagreement on:
(1) A review request cannot overturn a signed contract or hiring decision.
And
(6) The IAB, IESG and ISOC BoT (in hearing an appeal) cannot overturn a decision of the IAOC, only advise the IAOC that they believe that an incorrect decision was made.
I feel quite strongly about principle (1), as I don't know how the IAOC could negotiate and administer contracts if they might, at any time, be overturned by someone else. And, I don't even know what it would mean to "overturn" a signed contract, since it would then be outside the control of IASA to change it. I do think that the IAOC's contract negotiation rules should include a period of public comment on major decisions before they sign binding contracts or MOUs, but that is a subject for future IAOC operating procedures, not for this document, I guess.
I am actually not strongly in favor of principle (6) myself. I think that the IAB, IESG and ISOC BoT could be trusted to decide whether overturning a particular (non-binding) decision is appropriate in a particular situation. But, others seemed to feel strongly that allowing anyone else to overturn any decision of the IAOC would be very bad. I can't say that I fully understand why.
Please note that principle (6) does allow the IAOC to overturn an IAD or IAOC decision based on a review request/appeal. It also allows the IAOC to overturn a decision based on advice from the IAB, IESG or ISOC BoT that it would be best to do so. So, I am comfortable with this one either way.
Do you have a strong opinion on this one way or the other?
Margaret
_______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf