> 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 think this is essentially right. That is, it makes no sense to appeal to ISOC that "the process itself was unfair and has failed to produce a proper result", if there wasn't first an appeal on actual substance that didn't result in the appropriate outcome. But, technically, I would not expect the appeal to the IESG/IAB and the one to the ISOC to be exactly the same. In the former case, the appeal is presumably on actual decisions and actions made in WGs, by the IESG, etc. In the latter case, the argument is much more about the process itself (and how it failed to "protect the rights of all parties in a fair and open Internet Standards Process" as indicated in 2026) and is less focussed on the details that led to the original appeal. Thomas _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf