On May 31, 2006, at 12:56 PM, Bill Fenner wrote:
Do you read that as being able to say "the IAB made a mistake in their (RFC Editor selection|liaison management|other IAB-assigned task)"? I read it as being able to say "the IAB upheld my appeal to the IESG because RFC 2026 supports them, but RFC 2026 is wrong" and nothing more.
Well, since RFC 2026 assigns the tasks (or perhaps more properly, notes that the tasks have been so assigned), if the community thought the IAB did something wrong in their tasks, they would appeal on that basis to the ISOC Board. You are correct that the set of responses that the ISOC Board is empowered to give is not particularly broad - the board would basically be forced to say that RFC 2026 assigned the task to the wrong group, and direct the IETF to conduct an appropriate process to figure out who should have been given the job. In context, that translates roughly as "you guys go talk about it and come up with a more appropriate solution".
The interesting question is not who the IAB appeals go to, though. It is to whom the IAOC appeals go. After all, if it is the IAD that signs contracts such as the RFC Editor's contract, he is overseen by the IAOC, and the IAOC is very carefully structured as *not* reporting to the ISOC Board.
_______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
