-----Original Message----- >From: Brian E Carpenter <brc@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> >Sent: Jul 18, 2006 5:13 AM >To: Pete Resnick <presnick@xxxxxxxxxxxx> >Cc: Frank Ellermann <nobody@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, ietf@xxxxxxxx >Subject: Re: Response to the Appeal by [...] > >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. The problem is that the language of the control is not specific to when it is envoked and as such it is open to others interpetations as well. The problem Brian is to write control's in language that is not open to interpretation and this IETF has failed miserably at that. Virtually all the IETF's control process documents have a number of holes in each control process such that they are neither reliable or accountable for anything below them. This is one of the real issues moving forward and needs to be corrected. Todd Glassey as an Auditor > 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. It is then the >appellant's right to decide whether to take the appeal >further. > > Brian > >Pete Resnick wrote: >> On 7/17/06 at 8:52 PM +0200, Frank Ellermann wrote: >> >>> Pete Resnick wrote: >>> >>>> Appeals of this sort should not be brought to the IESG (or the IAB). >>>> I suggest that the IESG and the IAB always decline to decide such >>>> issues in the future should similar appeals come up. >>> >>> >>> The question then shifts from "is there a problem with 'this' >>> (whatever, here 3683) document" to "is there a general problem with >>> the standards process up to and including the IAB appeal". >> >> >> No. In this particular case, the appeal was specifically about the >> fairness of the procedure as documented in RFC 3683, not about the >> process in adopting 3683. See >> <http://www.ietf.org/IESG/APPEALS/morfin-appeal-against-appeal.txt> >> where it says: >> >> "I am not interested in this part in the conformance of the IESG >> procedure with RFC 3683, nor in the particulars of the case. They are >> addressed in other parts. I am interested in the general conformance of >> RFC 3683 (as experimented through this case) with the Human Rights. From >> my experience RFC 3863 PR-actions are in violation of the most >> elementary rights of the persons." >> >> RFC 2026 is pretty plain on this. Section 6.5 allows for 3 kinds of >> appeals: >> >> - 6.5.1 says that you can appeal a WG decision on the grounds that your >> view hasn't been heard or it's technically wrong. In that case, 6.5.1 >> says the appeal goes WG-chair->AD->IESG->IAB->end. >> >> - 6.5.2 says that you can appeal an IESG action on the grounds that it >> didn't follow the process. In that case, 6.5.2 says the appeal goes >> IESG-chair->IESG->IAB->end. >> >> - 6.5.3 says that you can appeal on the grounds that the procedures >> themselves are unfair. In that case, 6.5.3 says the appeal goes >> ISOC-BoT->end. >> >> This appeal was (as stated by the appellant) clearly one of type 6.5.3. >> It (and appeals like it) should therefore be rejected without >> consideration by the IESG or the IAB. The appellant should bring them >> directly to the ISOC Board of Trustees. (*Do not pass Go. Do not collect >> $200.*) >> >> pr > >_______________________________________________ >Ietf mailing list >Ietf@xxxxxxxx >https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf