>>>>> "Noel" == Noel Chiappa <jnc@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
>> From: "Gray, Eric" <Eric.Gray@xxxxxxxxxxx> Clearly we should be
>> thinking about some way to "charge" participants for
>> potentially abusing the IETF appeals process in general. There
>> is some minimal processing time associated with any appeal for
>> everyone who has anything to do with it.
Noel> The legal system in several countries has the concept of a
Noel> "vexatious litigator" label, which, when applied to someone,
Noel> means they are not allowed to file a lawsuit without the
Noel> approval of a some third party, generally a judge.
Noel> I suggest the IESG/whomever take immediate steps to amend
Noel> the appeals process so that there is a suitable process by
Noel> which someone who abuses the appeals process by repeatedly
Noel> filing pointless, unworthy appeals can be labelled a
Noel> "vexatious appellant", whereby they are barred from filing
Noel> appeals unless any such appeals are approved by some
Noel> appropriate third party.
Hi. I'm not sure it is necessary to go that far.
I'm actually trying to discuss this issue with the rest of the IESG
and see if we can come to agreement on how we'd like to handle making
sure that appeals don't become a DOS. Clearly we'll need to let the
community know what we decide. Also, if it involves modifying a BCP
and not just establishing internal IESG procedure, we'll need a formal
last call.
Clearly we should take any community comments we receive into account.
However I don't think this particular issue requires the entire ietf
list to design a solution. I suspect we'll be able to come up with a
first cut on our own without taking up the time of the entire
community.
_______________________________________________
Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf