Harald Tveit Alvestrand wrote:
Brian,
....... We probably want what
has happened in practice with most appeals to the IAB, i.e. an anlysis
of what went wrong and caused unhappiness, and advice and procedural
improvements to prevent the same mistake being repeated.
So I think the flavour is indeed more review than appeal. But as
I said yesterday, I agree with principle that the review could be
escalated as far as the ISOC Board - it just seems right.
four points of unhappiness with what you say:
- as I defined the term here, if the ISOC Board carries out the
investigation, it is an appeal (different body), not a review (same body)
Yes, but if you read 2026 the ISOC Board role is very restricted:
Further recourse is available only in cases in which the procedures
themselves (i.e., the procedures described in this document) are
claimed to be inadequate or insufficient to the protection of the
rights of all parties in a fair and open Internet Standards Process.
Claims on this basis may be made to the Internet Society Board of
Trustees.
I'd assume it would be similarly restricted in this case.
- the design of the balance of tasks between the ISOC BoT and the IAOC
has been a long process - mostly resulting in the IAOC determining
whether or not the IETF's needs are being met, the ISOC BoT determining
whether or not the plans are fiscally responsible, and both cooperating
to find a way forward where both things are true. Moving review of *all*
decisions that the IAD and IAOC makes to a chain that ends up at the
ISOC BoT changes that - and so does moving review of financial decisions
to the IESG/IAB. See my notes about "implicit hierarchy" at the start of
this thread.
It's true and that bothers me too. But what alternative do we have?
If the IAOC reviews one of its own decisions and concludes that
it's perfect, where next except the existing committees?
- I think the ISOC BoT has a degree of ability to review that this BCP
does not affect - because the ISOC BoT has fiduciary responsibility. But
that is an ability that isn't dependent on anyone bringing complaint to
them and being persistent enough to get past multiple levels of other
review bodies.
Actually the BoT should review anything smelly without being told,
since as you say they have fiduciary responsibility. But that is really
a separate issue from community-requested review.
- And last: Even if there is an appeals chain, I don't think the IESG
and the IAB should be in it. We are supposed to be selected for the
wrong sort of competence.
Indeed. So do you want to create a review committee?
I have a proposal. We aren't progressing here. Wouldn't it be better
to punt? i.e. state in the BCP that IASA and IAOC decisions are
subject to review at the request of members of the IETF community,
and that the review process will be defined in a future document.
Brian
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
