On Jun 7, 2012, at 10:20 PM, Paul Hoffman wrote: > On Jun 7, 2012, at 6:13 PM, Bradner, Scott wrote: > >> On Jun 7, 2012, at 7:09 PM, Paul Hoffman wrote: >> >>> On May 30, 2012, at 11:22 PM, Eliot Lear wrote: >>> >>>> • It's probably worth adding a word or two about the fact that the ISOC >>>> Board is the final appellate avenue in the standardization process. In >>>> this way it may also make sense to move Section 3.2.1 further back behind >>>> the IAB. >>> >>> I have heard that as well, but cannot find it in RFC 2026 or any of the >>> RFCs that update 2026 (3667 3668 3932 3978 3979 5378 5657 5742 6410). It >>> should only be in the Tao if we can point to where the rule comes from. >> >> >> see RFC 2026 section 6.5.3 >> >> 6.5.3 Questions of Applicable Procedure >> >> 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. The President of the Internet Society shall acknowledge >> such an appeal within two weeks, and shall at the time of >> acknowledgment advise the petitioner of the expected duration of the >> Trustees' review of the appeal. The Trustees shall review the >> situation in a manner of its own choosing and report to the IETF on >> the outcome of its review. >> >> The Trustees' decision upon completion of their review shall be final >> with respect to all aspects of the dispute. >> >> note that the appeal to the ISOC BopT is only if the claim is that the rules >> are broken >> not the application of the rules > > Exactly right. What Eliot said, and others have said, is that the ISOC board > is the "final appellate avenue in the standardization process". That's quite > different than "the rules are broken".
just to be clear - saying "final appellate avenue in the standardization process". could be read as meaning that a appeal of a technical decision could be made to the ISOC Board and that is not the case - this is why I used different language not sure which you were supporting Scott > >> there has never been such an appeal > > > Happily noted. > > --Paul Hoffman >
