Margaret Wasserman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > At 5:40 PM -0800 1/26/05, Eric Rescorla wrote: >>With that in mind, I would like to suggest the following principles: >> >>1. The IETF community should have input on the internal rules >> set by the IASA and the IASA should be required to respond >> to comments by the community on said rules. >> >>2. While the IASA's behavior should be constrained by BCPs (as it will >> be constrained by the first one) we should in general refrain from >> enacting specific internal IASA rules changes by BCP. If it is believed >> that the IAOC is making bad decisions we have a mechanism for unseating >> them. >> >>3. Decisions of the IAOC should be appealable (following the >> usual 2026 appeal chain) on the sole grounds that the IASA's >> processes were not followed. Those decisions should NOT be >> appealable on the grounds that the decisions were simply bad ones. > > I think that something along these lines could meet all of my > "principles". BTW, I don't feel that I have any special right to set > the principles for this mechanism, so folks should feel free to add > new ones or argue with the ones I put forward... > > Your proposal certainly meets the following ones: > > (2) It is well-enough specified (here and in RFC 2026) that person who > is not a (past or present) member of the I* could use it. > > (4) Any member of the community can make a review request (or appeal) > and get a response. > > (5) There is at least one level of escalation possible. (In fact, > there are three.) > > Your criteria are different than mine, and therefore there may be some > disagreement on: > > (3) Review requests should be limited to situations where the IAOC > violates written procedures (their own or a BCP) and/or makes a > decisions that is against the best interests of the IETF. > > You only want to allow appeals based on the fact that a published rule > was not followed, and I would like to allow appeals based on both of > the above criteria. I don't know how close or how far we are on > this... My idea is that the IAOC should not be able to make decisions > that are damaging to the IETF without any community recourse, just > because there is no written rule that prevents it. The problem is that "best interests of the IETF " is a completely amorophous standard (In my view, chocolate helps people think better so we need chocolate chip cookies in order to produce better standards), so I don't seee how this rules out any appeals at all.
> We also seem to have some disagreement on: > > (1) A review request cannot overturn a signed contract or hiring decision. > > And > > (6) The IAB, IESG and ISOC BoT (in hearing an appeal) cannot overturn > a decision of the IAOC, only advise the IAOC that they believe that an > incorrect decision was made. > > I feel quite strongly about principle (1), as I don't know how the > IAOC could negotiate and administer contracts if they might, at any > time, be overturned by someone else. And, I don't even know what it > would mean to "overturn" a signed contract, since it would then be > outside the control of IASA to change it. Yes, I think this is absolutely correct. > I am actually not strongly in favor of principle (6) myself. I think > that the IAB, IESG and ISOC BoT could be trusted to decide whether > overturning a particular (non-binding) decision is appropriate in a > particular situation. But, others seemed to feel strongly that > allowing anyone else to overturn any decision of the IAOC would be > very bad. I can't say that I fully understand why. > > Please note that principle (6) does allow the IAOC to overturn an IAD > or IAOC decision based on a review request/appeal. It also allows the > IAOC to overturn a decision based on advice from the IAB, IESG or ISOC > BoT that it would be best to do so. So, I am comfortable with this > one either way. > > Do you have a strong opinion on this one way or the other? I could live either way, but my original thought was that in the case of allegations that the IAOC had not followed its internal rules, the IESG and IAB could overturn its decisions. Certainly, they can impose new rules on it through the RFC process.... -Ekr _______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
