Title: Re: Response to the Appeal by [...]
|
What may be more interesting Phillip is the Theofel
v Farey Jones ruling out of the 9th Circuit since it sets real pain for 'taking
an electronic service away from someone who is dependant on it'...
Todd
Glassey
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Thursday, July 20, 2006 8:37
AM
Subject: Re: Response to the Appeal by
[...]
There is a certain irony in the fact that the starting point
here was aledged overuse of mailing list
bandwidth.
-----Original Message-----
From: JFC
Morfin [mailto:jefsey@xxxxxxxxxx]
Sent:
Wednesday, July 19, 2006 01:32 PM Pacific Standard
Time
To: Thomas Narten; Brian E
Carpenter
Cc: Pete Resnick; Frank Ellermann; ietf@xxxxxxxx
Subject:
Re: Response to the Appeal by [...]
This is my
understanding.
However this rises a problem in cases like RFC 3683.
Because in this
case (this what the IESG claims) the delay for appealing
the RFC 3863
text is over. This is why I spoke of "RFC 3863 application",
the same
as there is usually a text and a running code. In a "BCP"
organising
the Internet standard process the "running code" can only
come
afterward. This is why I did not appeal against the RFC 3683
but
against the way it was applied (underlining that possible bias
would
be discussed separately). Being the first one subject to the
"RFC
3863 running code", however the appeal delay against the text
is
over, the appeal delay against the way the running code works
had
just started.
jfc
At 15:02 19/07/2006, Thomas Narten
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 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
mailing list
>Ietf@xxxxxxxx
>https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
_______________________________________________
Ietf
mailing list
Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing
list
Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
|
_______________________________________________
Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf