I've tuned the text below to:
- Removed the para about metrics. That's not part of this section.
Could go under "IAD responsibilities". But I think they're not critical.
- Go straight to the IAB on the appeals path.
- Clarified that "do nothing but answer" is a valid option when responding
- Changed "initiate work on changing the BCP" to "recommend to the comnunity
that the BCPs should be changed"
Most responses on the list have spoken in favour of leaving the last section (overturn decisions) in; John pointed out that it's completely unclear what the real rules for this type of action is. And I still don't like it.
Still - I think this is a text that is possible to live with.
3.5 Review and Appeal of IAD and IAOC Decision
The IAOC is directly accountable to the IETF community for the performance of the IASA. In order to achieve this, the IAOC and IAD will ensure that guidelines are developed for regular operational decision making. Where appropriate, these guidelines should be developed with public input. In all cases, they must be made public.
In the case where someone questions whether a decision or action of the IAD or the IAOC has been undertaken in accordance with IETF BCPs or IASA operational guidelines (including the question of whether appropriate guidelines have been created or maintained), he or she may ask the IAOC for a formal review of the decision or action.
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, in the requestor's opinion, the decision or action violates the BCPs or 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, change their operational guidelines to prevent further misunderstandings, take other action as appropriate, or just publish the review result and take no other action.
If a member of the community is not satisfied with the IAOC's response to his or her review request, he or she may escalate the issue by appealing the decision or action to the IAB, using the appeals procedures outlined in RFC 2026 [RFC2026]. If he or she is not satisfied with the IAB response, he or she can escalate the issue to the ISOC Board of Trustees, as described in RFC 2026.
The reviewing body (IAB or ISOC BoT) will review the decision of the IAD or IAOC to determine whether it was made in accordance with existing BCPs and operational guidelines. As a result of this review, the reviewing body may recommend to the community that the BCPs governing IAOC actions should be changed. It may also advise the IAOC to modify existing operational guidelines to avoid similar issues in the future and/or may advise the IAOC to re-consider their decision or action. It may also recommend that no action be taken based on the review.
In exceptional cases, when no other recourse seems reasonable, the
reviewing body 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.).Comments?
Harald
_______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf