On Fri, Jan 28, 2005 03:02:00PM +0100, Harald Tveit Alvestrand allegedly wrote: > The request for review is addressed to the IAOC chair and should > include a description of the decision or action to be reviewed, > an explanation of how the decision or action violates the BCPs or violates -> is presumed to violate > operational guidelines, and a suggestion for how the situation > could be rectified. All requests for review will be publicly > posted, and the IAOC is expected to respond to these requests > within a reasonable period, typically within 90 days. It is up > to the IAOC to determine what type of review and response is > required, based on the nature of the review request. Based on > the results of the review, the IAOC may choose to overturn their > own decision and/or to change their operational guidelines to > prevent further misunderstandings. or may do nothing, or may do a whole lot of other things in between. Providing this choice implies that one of these two must be chosen. Is this sentence necessary? Does anything prohibit them from doing either of these things if the sentence is removed? > In exceptional cases, when no other recourse seems reasonable, > the IESG, IAB or ISOC BoT may overturn or reverse a non-binding > decision or action of the IAOC. This should be done after > careful consideration and consultation with the IAOC regarding > the ramifications of this action. In no circumstances may the > IESG or IAB overturn a decision of the IAOC that involves a > binding contract or overturn a personnel-related action (such as > hiring, firing, promotion, demotion, performance reviews, salary > adjustments, etc.). > > In another message, I have suggested removing the last paragraph - > but it's not a show-stopper for me to leave it in. Comments? Either way. Thanks ... Scott (Brim) _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf