Re: bcp-02: Section 3.4
Hi, On 12 dec 2004, at 15.06, Wijnen, Bert (Bert) wrote: I guess I am of the "less formal" type of person. Well, in terms of type of person, I am rather informal myself. but in this case I think we are talking about a process that can serve the IETF community and I believe it needs a certain formality. We can send omcplaints/concerns ot IAOC. And I just look for a statement under their duties that says they receive and act on these complaints/concerns. We ssume IAOC will handle/act on it I don't think it is safe to assume. If assumptions of people doing the right thing were always sufficient, we would not need most of the text in this BCP. If they do not, we can start the recall process on them I would prefer to not have to rely on that big a hammer. Maybe I am just too simple minded. Somehow, I doubt that. a. Bert -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, December 12, 2004 15:17 To: Wijnen, Bert (Bert) Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Sam Hartman Subject: Re: bcp-02: Section 3.4 Well, A letter of complaint requires no response unless there is something that formalizes the requirement of response. And if there is no procedure indicating that the IAOC needs to pay attention to a letter of complain, that decision, i.e the one to ignore letters of complain, cannot be appealed. So, as I see it, without a formalized process of complaint/appeal of IAD actions we are left with no avenue to deal with problems other then by the yearly nomcom process and the IETF list. On 11 dec 2004, at 22.18, Wijnen, Bert (Bert) wrote: Avri writes: Unless I am missing something in the document, there is no way for a member of the IETf community to formally ask the IAOC to review the decisions of the IAD. Since when would you not be allowed to send an email/complaint to the IAOC ?? I guess you meant to say that there is not "formal way" to do so, yeah, that is what i explicitly said. but we're all adults and we CAN communicate, can we not? what does being an adult have to do with it? I don't understand. The issue is that there is no way to make the IAOC take notice of the communication. I.e. I do not see why we would need to make a formal procedure for this. Because the lack of formalization leaves the IETF community without a means to appeal decisions. And this decreases the level of accountability. And of the things I thought that were driving the entire AdminRest process was the need for transparency and accountability. And as I understand accountability in the IETF, it involves handling appeals from the IETF community. a. ___ Ietf mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf ___ Ietf mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: bcp-02: Section 3.4
I've been thinknig more about the issue of the appeal process. Here are some of the questions I have considered and the answers I've found. First, can I provide something I'd like better than the current text? The obvious candidate is the text in draft-ietf-iasa-bcp-00. This would be problematic for two reasons. First, I don't think we could get a consensus in support of that text. Second, several people pointed out a real potential for abuse of that process. The concern that the IASA would not be able to do its job because of various appeals is serious. Harald also pointed out that designing appeals processes are hard; we should not do so if we can avoid it. I do not believe I'm capable of designing a process that is not subject to abuse and that meets my concerns in the time available. Is the appeals process in iasa-bcp-02 a regression over the status quo? Currently there is no formal process for the IETF to appeal a decision of the secretary. In practice CNRI responds to concerns raised by the IETF chair. I'm aware of nothing that requires them to do so. As such, this process does not appear to be a regression. An important side note is that without an appeals process we seem to be doing moderately OK; it is likely that this process will not often be used. Do we have recourse if we find the appeals process in the BCP is inadequate? As others have pointed out we do have the option of a recall of some or all IAOC members. If that were all the choice we had, I would consider the current text unacceptable. However we also have the option of creating or revising a new appeals procedure. I'd hate to find ourselves in the position of doing that in response to a specific issue, but it is an option we have and an option appropriate to use if circumstances justify its use. Relying on this option is dangerous: if we feel that we are not in a position to design an appeal process now, how will we feel when faced with the urgency and division of a pressing process failure? In conclusion, I do not like the current text. However it seems like the best option available in the time we have. It is something I can live with. --Sam ___ Ietf mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
RE: bcp-02: Section 3.4
I guess I am of the "less formal" type of person. We can send omcplaints/concerns ot IAOC. We ssume IAOC will handle/act on it If they do not, we can start the recall process on them Maybe I am just too simple minded. Bert > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Sunday, December 12, 2004 15:17 > To: Wijnen, Bert (Bert) > Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Sam Hartman > Subject: Re: bcp-02: Section 3.4 > > > Well, > > A letter of complaint requires no response unless there is something > that formalizes the requirement of response. > > And if there is no procedure indicating that the IAOC needs to pay > attention to a letter of complain, that decision, i.e the one > to ignore > letters of complain, cannot be appealed. > > So, as I see it, without a formalized process of complaint/appeal of > IAD actions we are left with no avenue to deal with problems > other then > by the yearly nomcom process and the IETF list. > > > On 11 dec 2004, at 22.18, Wijnen, Bert (Bert) wrote: > > > Avri writes: > >> Unless I am missing something in the document, there is no > way for a > >> member of the IETf community to formally ask the IAOC to review the > >> decisions of the IAD. > > > > Since when would you not be allowed to send an email/complaint to > > the IAOC ?? > > > > I guess you meant to say that there is not "formal way" to do so, > > yeah, that is what i explicitly said. > > > but we're all adults and we CAN communicate, can we not? > > what does being an adult have to do with it? > I don't understand. The issue is that there is no way to > make the IAOC > take notice of the communication. > > > > > I.e. I do not see why we would need to make a formal procedure for > > this. > > Because the lack of formalization leaves the IETF community without a > means to appeal decisions. And this decreases the level of > accountability. > > And of the things I thought that were driving the entire AdminRest > process was the need for transparency and accountability. And as I > understand accountability in the IETF, it involves handling appeals > from the IETF community. > > a. > ___ Ietf mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: bcp-02: Section 3.4
Well, A letter of complaint requires no response unless there is something that formalizes the requirement of response. And if there is no procedure indicating that the IAOC needs to pay attention to a letter of complain, that decision, i.e the one to ignore letters of complain, cannot be appealed. So, as I see it, without a formalized process of complaint/appeal of IAD actions we are left with no avenue to deal with problems other then by the yearly nomcom process and the IETF list. On 11 dec 2004, at 22.18, Wijnen, Bert (Bert) wrote: Avri writes: Unless I am missing something in the document, there is no way for a member of the IETf community to formally ask the IAOC to review the decisions of the IAD. Since when would you not be allowed to send an email/complaint to the IAOC ?? I guess you meant to say that there is not "formal way" to do so, yeah, that is what i explicitly said. but we're all adults and we CAN communicate, can we not? what does being an adult have to do with it? I don't understand. The issue is that there is no way to make the IAOC take notice of the communication. I.e. I do not see why we would need to make a formal procedure for this. Because the lack of formalization leaves the IETF community without a means to appeal decisions. And this decreases the level of accountability. And of the things I thought that were driving the entire AdminRest process was the need for transparency and accountability. And as I understand accountability in the IETF, it involves handling appeals from the IETF community. a. ___ Ietf mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
RE: bcp-02: Section 3.4
Avri writes: > Unless I am missing something in the document, there is no way for a > member of the IETf community to formally ask the IAOC to review the > decisions of the IAD. Since when would you not be allowed to send an email/complaint to the IAOC ?? I guess you meant to say that there is not "formal way" to do so, but we're all adults and we CAN communicate, can we not? I.e. I do not see why we would need to make a formal procedure for this. Bert ___ Ietf mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: bcp-02: Section 3.4
I tend to agree. As I mentioned in another note, I too am uncomfortable with the appeal procedures. In my case, I am not so much concerned about the ability to overturn decisions, such as contracts that are signed, as I have accepted that allowing this might make the job impossible. But I am concerned about the inability for the IETF community to invoke censure against an IAD who persists in making contractual arrangements that the IETF community finds unacceptable. Unless I am missing something in the document, there is no way for a member of the IETf community to formally ask the IAOC to review the decisions of the IAD. And while it is possible to lodge an appeal against the IAOC for not supervising the IAD properly, I think this may be a bit too roundabout. a. On 10 dec 2004, at 10.55, Sam Hartman wrote: I'm not very comfortable with the appeal text in section 3.4. There isn't a way to overturn decisions and there is no way to appeal decisions because the wrong decision was made. I understand why the current text is there. I understand there are significant concerns about having either of the things I'd like to see in an appeal system. I will try and think of constructive ways of getting better appealability without destroying the IASA's ability to do its job. I'm also not sure how uncomfortable I am with the current text. I know I don't like it, but it's hard to tell how strong that feeling is. --Sam ___ Ietf mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf ___ Ietf mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
