OK Sam - What do you do after the ISOC refuses to hear an appeal? What oversight is there? Arbitration? Court? This is a serious question since there is no reason for the ISOC BOT to actually consent to hear any specific appeal and by the writing of their own Articles of Incorporation or BOT Actions that I have read... there is no reason or constraining guideline forcing them to be this. So essentially what you have here is a block of text that says "My uncle will mediate disputes here" with no mediation framework, timeframe, evidentiary submission or review process, or oversight... and more importantly no agreement from the Uncle to stand in that role - or any requirements for its actions as such.\ By the way - why would the IETF figure that something it wrote in IPR or Network or any other WG would be legally binding on ISOC and its BOT??? Todd ----- Original Message ----- From: "Sam Hartman" <hartmans@xxxxxxx> To: "Pete Resnick" <presnick@xxxxxxxxxxxx> Cc: "Frank Ellermann" <nobody@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; <ietf@xxxxxxxx> Sent: Thursday, July 20, 2006 8:12 AM Subject: Re: Response to the Appeal by [...] > >>>>> "Pete" == Pete Resnick <presnick@xxxxxxxxxxxx> writes: > > Pete> 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. For which there is no adequately defined process, evidence submission model, oversight or external recourse defined for either. This is the "Trust me I wont..." commentary and is silly. > > Pete> I simply don't see how it can be read that way, especially > Pete> if you read through 6.5 in its entirely. It probably would > Pete> have caused less confusion if Scott had said "Other than the > Pete> above, the only grounds for appeal are in cases...". > > Having read 6.5 in its entirety multiple times, I agree with Brian's > reading not yours. > > Brian's reading is also preferable because in cases where the > unfairness of procedures is sufficiently blatent, the ISOC BOT need > not get involved. > > Finally, Brian's reading means that the ISOC BOT will have both the > IAB and the IESG's opinions on why the procedures are in fact fair. I > think that is useful input for their process. > > --sam > > > _______________________________________________ > Ietf mailing list > Ietf@xxxxxxxx > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf