Harald Tveit Alvestrand wrote:
--On fredag, januar 21, 2005 11:49:04 +0100 Brian E Carpenter
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Yes, but the stuff about decision review in Harald's text is pretty
clear that its the "person" or "body" that's subject to review.
Mike, yes, this text is problematic. But it isn't in the draft.
I don't find the text in the actual -04 draft anywhere near
as problematic, apart from the point I am arguing with Sam in
my previous note.
I'm afraid I'm beating a dead horse even deader, but.....
my proposed text was:
3.5 Decision review
In the case where someone questions a decision of the IAD or the
IAOC, he or she may ask for a formal review of the decision.
The request for review is addressed to the person or body that made
the decision. It is up to that body to decide to make a response,
and on the form of a response.
The IAD is required to respond to requests for a review from the
IAOC, and the IAOC is required to respond to requests for a review
of a decision from the IAB or from the IESG.
If members of the community feel that they are unjustly denied a
response to a request for review, they may ask the IAB or the IESG
to make the request on their behalf.
Answered requests for review and their responses are made public.
What part of that text makes it "pretty clear that its the "person" or
"body" that's subject to review", as Mike says?
That's how I read the 2nd sentence.
But I can live with this text, even though I prefer what is in the -04
draft. The point about exempting contract awards and employment
decisions is still on my list, though.
Brian
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
