Michael StJohns <mstjohns@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > Has either or both of the ISOC and IETF trust lawyers reviewed this, > especially section 5? As of the start of yesterday's telechat, Jari held a DISCUSS awaiting such a review. > If so, would you please provide the written evaluation that indicates > they see no issue with respect to IETF liability should the Ombudsman > actually attempt to exclude someone from the face to face or online > sessions? +1 > I'm still in great opposition to this document -1 > as I believe Section 5 provides too broad a palate of "remedies" without > appropriate checks and balances on the system. +1 I find it worrisome that a Respondent is prohibited from requiring public review of the process which led to a decision to exclude him/her. (Obviously the Reporter is entitled to privacy; but a person being excluded should have some option to request that the exclusion be publicly shown to not be arbitrary. This seems to be lacking.) > It's unclear that what actual recourse the IETF has if the target of > the remedies simply chooses to ignore the directions of the OBs. This, too: I fail to understand how an exclusion would be enforced. >... Since this is targeted for a BCP, the supporting documentation needs > to be part of the approval package. +0 I think this last statement needs a public response. -- John Leslie <john@xxxxxxx>