On Thu, Aug 31, 2006 at 05:55:25PM -0400, Jeffrey Hutzelman wrote: > Therefore, I propose the following: > > (1) Andrew's decision stands. Under RFC 3777, the only recourse available > to anyone who disagrees with that decision would be to ask Andrew to > reconsider or to file a dispute with the ISOC President. The former > has already been done, and so far no reversal has been announced. > Given that it is now after the close of trading on August 31, I would > submit that a reversal of this decision by either Andrew or Lynn would > do more harm than good. > > (2) Text is added to the next version of the selection process to addresss > this issue. I would suggest a strengthening of the existing language > about leaving questionable candidates in the list and rejecting them > in a later pass. In fact, it might be wiser to require the use of the > original list of volunteers as given to the secretariat and _always_ > rejecting ineligible candidates in a later pass. This would remove > any need to insure that errors or disputes about eligibility be > resolved before the random data becomes available. I think Jeff proposal makes a lot of sense and is probably the best way to move forward given the current circumstances. - Ted _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf