> This appears to be based on the view that an external legal process is amenable to the IETF's internal procedures. Of course, it isn't. > > Once there is a lawsuit, we are locked in to the procedures and authority of the courts and to the existing facts leading up to the lawsuit. Post-hoc efforts to evaluate whether we should have done something differently will be at the court's discretion, not the discretion of an IETF appeals group like the IAB or ISOC. I did not suggest that the IETF leadership only takes action once a lawsuit is filed. I observed that the particular lawsuit alleged that the SSO did not follow their own process. The IETF does have a process for resolving such issues: the internal appeal process. That process will alert the IETF leadership in time to take corrective actions if needed. Of course, plaintiffs could sue at any time, but they would have a very hard time arguing in a court of law that the IETF did not follow its process if they themselves did not use the recourse afforded by the IETF process. The lawsuit against the SSO argues a failure to act by the leadership. We don't know yet whether the lawsuit will succeed, but we can point out many avenues of actions open to the area directors or the IESG. They can of course send the offending draft standard to the WG. They can refuse publication. They can change the WG leadership. They can even dissolve the WG. This is the point where advice is useful. -- Christian Huitema _______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf