Ted - I have no problem on there being a defined and solid dispute resolution process and a cap to it in the IETF - the problem is that the one that is in place now has so many holes in it and so little oversight that the abuse that most turn away from runs rampant in the IETF and the one that is there doesn't work.
The point is that the model that is documented here specifies things that are not in place and that makes the document 'ineffectual' in a contract sense. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Theodore Tso" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "todd glassey" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Cc: "Sam Hartman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "Pete Resnick" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "Frank Ellermann" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <ietf@ietf.org> Sent: Thursday, July 20, 2006 12:16 PM Subject: Re: Response to the Appeal by [...] > On Thu, Jul 20, 2006 at 11:02:23AM -0700, todd glassey wrote: > > OK Sam - > > What do you do after the ISOC refuses to hear an appeal? What oversight is > > there? Arbitration? Court? This is a serious question since there is no > > reason for the ISOC BOT to actually consent to hear any specific appeal and > > by the writing of their own Articles of Incorporation or BOT Actions > > that I have read... there is no reason or constraining guideline > > forcing them to be this. > > What do you do have the the US Supreme Court refuses to hear an > appeal? What oversight is there? You can not force the US Supreme > Court to consent to hear anyu specific appeal, after all..... > > At the end of the day, there has to be some court of last appeal; it > can't be turtles all the way down. > > - Ted _______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
