----- Original Message ----- From: "Pete Resnick" <presnick@xxxxxxxxxxxx> To: "Thomas Narten" <narten@xxxxxxxxxx>; "Sam Hartman" <hartmans@xxxxxxx> Cc: "Frank Ellermann" <nobody@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; <ietf@xxxxxxxx> Sent: Thursday, July 20, 2006 11:04 AM Subject: Re: Response to the Appeal by [...] > On 7/19/06 at 9:02 AM -0400, Thomas Narten wrote: > > >...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. > > On this we might agree (though I think this is something different > than what Brian and Sam are saying): You can read "Further > recourse..." to mean that you can't appeal a process on the grounds > of fairness unless you have been affected by that process. But I > think we also agree that you don't bring the question of fairness of > the process to IESG/IAB, but straight to ISOC: The appeal you bring > to the IESG/IAB is different from the one you bring to ISOC. That requires a policy and approval by the ISOC - this is one of the onerous failings of the ISOC as well.... that it let the IETF define its own contractual processes and their recourse models. T > > On 7/20/06 at 11:12 AM -0400, Sam Hartman wrote: > > >Having read 6.5 in its entirety multiple times, I agree with Brian's > >reading not yours. > > OK, for the sake of argument let's assume that we read it like you > and Brian. Let's ask some questions: If I think that the way > technical choices are made in a WG is unfair, do I bring that to the > WG chair to adjudicate first? That's what I would do under 6.5.1. Or, > since it is a procedural question, do I bring it straight to the IESG > chair as 6.5.2 requires me to do? Do WG process questions (as defined > in 6.5.1) go to the IESG chair (as defined in 6.5.2)? > > I can't figure out how to read the the first paragraph of 6.5.1 > (especially the last sentence) and the first paragraph of 6.5.2 and > come up with an explanation where the procedures for 6.5.1, 6.5.2 and > 6.5.3 are tied to each other. They are independently run processes. > And nowhere in the process of 6.5.3 is there mention of bringing it > to the IESG or IAB. > > >Brian's reading is also preferable because in cases where the > >unfairness of procedures is sufficiently blatent, the ISOC BOT need > >not get involved. > > But it also means that if a particular IESG decides that a BCP > procedure (something that has ostensibly achieved rough consensus) is > unfair, they can simply say, "This is unfair, so we're not following > it" without any community review. That's just nuts. Neither the IESG > nor the IAB should be in the business of reviewing whether an extant > BCP procedure is fair. (Of course, before the BCP is published, those > considerations should occur. But doing so afterwards invites all > sorts of nonsense.) > > >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. > > "The Trustees shall review the situation in a manner of its own > choosing". They can ask for the opinions of anyone they choose. > > pr > -- > Pete Resnick <http://www.qualcomm.com/~presnick/> > QUALCOMM Incorporated - Direct phone: (858)651-4478, Fax: (858)651-1102 > > _______________________________________________ > Ietf mailing list > Ietf@xxxxxxxx > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf