Margaret,
Four observations...
(1) While I can follow your concern, I see nothing in the text
that prevents the ISOC BoT from exerting whatever oversight and
review authority it has just because it became aware of
something because of an appeal. The text says "as the _result_
of an appeal" (emphasis mine) and that seems about as clear as
can be.
Whether the document is clear and precise enough to permit the
ISOC Board the degree of review and oversight that is needed,
and no more and no less, is a subject about which I don't have
an opinion at the moment. But it seems to be that question is
where you should be focusing your attention. All this text says
to me is that the ISOC BoT isn't able to use the fact of an
appeal as the justification for exercising authority that it
would not otherwise have. To illustrate that claim, contrast
the ISOC BoT's situation with that of the IAB. The IAB normally
has no authority to direct the IAOC to do, or not do, anything
at all, ever, except to go review a decision (it can provide
input, but so can everyone else). On an appeal, the IAB
acquires some additional authority to tell the IAOC to change
what it is doing, as long as that doesn't involve the exceptions
set forth in this section. But the ISOC BoT, to the extent to
which it has the authority you are requesting for the
circumstances you describe, doesn't need to have an appeal in
process to give it that authority -- the appeal changes nothing.
(2) You are getting excited about an extremely low probability
edge case. To the extent to which we have appeals, I think we
expect them to be about situations in which the IAD or IAOC
makes a decision that reflects either lack of adequate
information or bad judgment. That could clearly happen (although
see (3)). The case you seem to be addressing is one in which a
decision is made that is illegal, fiscally impossible, in clear
violation of well-understood policies, blatantly immoral, etc.
(I have added a few possible cases to your list to reinforce the
point.) They are making these wrong-headed decisions with the
ISOC President and the additional ISOC-appointed representative
(and others) not only completely asleep at the switch, but
managing to stay asleep during the first three stages of an
appeal in practice, i.e., managing to sleep through subsequent...
* Loud screams in private
* Really loud screams in public
* Appeal to the IAB and processing
I know the first two aren't required by the procedures, but we
both know this community, don't we?
I think that combination of circumstances is either so unlikely
that it isn't worth our putting energy into or so serious that,
were it to occur, fixing the particular act would not be our
main problem.
(3) Nothing in the remarks above should be taken as indicating
that I'm any happier with this appeals model than I have been
all along. My desire to ignore the question and get on with
things is based, not on the belief that the model and procedure
are correct, but on the belief that either the procedure will
(almost?) never be used or that we will rapidly discover the
problems in practice and then get them fixed.
(4) And I probably agree with you about the nature and progress
of changes after the last call has closed and without the
expectation of another one, on a finished document. I think
the rapidity of change, the dropping participation level, etc.,
create very significant risks. Whether those risks are worth it
is, of course, another question. That question, for me, is
strongly colored by different assumptions about the implications
of the possible shift in the ownership of Foretec and the
associated conditions.
john
--On Friday, 11 February, 2005 14:10 -0500 Margaret Wasserman
<margaret@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> Hi Harald,
>
> At 5:02 PM +0100 2/11/05, Harald Tveit Alvestrand wrote:
>> In no circumstances may the IAB or
>> ISOC Board of Trustees 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.) as a result
>> of an appeal.
>
> So, if a person appeals a decision of the IAD or IAOC to the
> ISOC Board and, in the course of investigating that appeal,
> the ISOC Board determines that a contract or personnel
> decision violates ISOC's accounting policies, violates the
> laws of the country most likely to have jurisdiction and/or
> could result in substantial liability for ISOC (these are the
> types of exceptional situations that I could envision falling
> under this clause) could the ISOC Board overturn the decision?
> Or would the ISOC Board be constrained to providing "advice"
> to the IAOC because this issue was discovered as the result of
> an appeal?
>
> I am not comfortable with the idea that the ISOC Board would
> be constrained to providing advice in this (extremely
> unlikely) situation, since the IAOC does not have
> responsibility to uphold ISOC policy, ensure that ISOC
> conducts its business in a legal manner and/or protect ISOC
> from liability -- the ISOC Board does.
>
> My understanding of the justification for why the IAB should
> not be able to mess with contracts or personnel decisions is
> that the IAB is not chosen for business expertise and
> therefore might lack the expertise to fully understand the
> implications of changing those decisions. I certainly hope
> that isn't true of the ISOC Board (present company excepted,
> of course).
>
> I'm also somewhat uncomfortable with the process that is
> resulting in these changes (the ones that I have suggested, as
> well as the ones that I don't like)... We seem to be changing
> the document quite frequently (faster than I feel I can keep
> up, sometimes multiple times between actual revisions), and
> many of these changes are being made based on the comments of
> one or two people. In some cases (not this one) we are making
> changes to text that has been stable in the document for
> months.
>
> Are you sure that everyone who cares about this process is
> keeping up with these changes? Is there some plan for making
> sure that everyone is still in-sync on a final version? I
> think that an IETF LC is supposed to serve that purpose, but
> we seem to have already held ours...
>
> Margaret
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Ietf mailing list
> Ietf@xxxxxxxx
> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
_______________________________________________
Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf