On 7/18/06 at 11:13 AM +0200, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
Speaking only for myself, I have always read the words "Further recourse is available..." at the beginning of section 6.5.3 of RFC 2026 to mean that an appeal to the ISOC Board can only follow rejection of an appeal by both the IESG and IAB.
I simply don't see how it can be read that way, especially if you read through 6.5 in its entirely. It probably would have caused less confusion if Scott had said "Other than the above, the only grounds for appeal are in cases...".
Therefore, in my opinion, it is required for the IESG to consider such grounds for appeal, and to decide whether to accept or reject them.
I think this is an error, and I urge the IESG and the IAB not to do so in the future.
pr -- Pete Resnick <http://www.qualcomm.com/~presnick/> QUALCOMM Incorporated _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf