I agree that this seems to be the best course available.
Yours,
Joel M. Halpern
At 09:08 PM 8/31/2006, Theodore Tso wrote:
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
_______________________________________________
Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf