I'd be interested in any comments on draft-carpenter-ietf-disputes-00.txt
in this context.
Brian
Pete Resnick wrote:
On 7/19/06 at 9:02 AM -0400, Thomas Narten wrote:
...it makes no sense to appeal to ISOC that "the process itself was
unfair and has failed to produce a proper result", if there wasn't
first an appeal on actual substance that didn't result in the
appropriate outcome.
But, technically, I would not expect the appeal to the IESG/IAB and
the one to the ISOC to be exactly the same. In the former case, the
appeal is presumably on actual decisions and actions made in WGs, by
the IESG, etc. In the latter case, the argument is much more about the
process itself (and how it failed to "protect the rights of all
parties in a fair and open Internet Standards Process" as indicated in
2026) and is less focussed on the details that led to the original
appeal.
On this we might agree (though I think this is something different than
what Brian and Sam are saying): You can read "Further recourse..." to
mean that you can't appeal a process on the grounds of fairness unless
you have been affected by that process. But I think we also agree that
you don't bring the question of fairness of the process to IESG/IAB, but
straight to ISOC: The appeal you bring to the IESG/IAB is different from
the one you bring to ISOC.
On 7/20/06 at 11:12 AM -0400, Sam Hartman wrote:
Having read 6.5 in its entirety multiple times, I agree with Brian's
reading not yours.
OK, for the sake of argument let's assume that we read it like you and
Brian. Let's ask some questions: If I think that the way technical
choices are made in a WG is unfair, do I bring that to the WG chair to
adjudicate first? That's what I would do under 6.5.1. Or, since it is a
procedural question, do I bring it straight to the IESG chair as 6.5.2
requires me to do? Do WG process questions (as defined in 6.5.1) go to
the IESG chair (as defined in 6.5.2)?
I can't figure out how to read the the first paragraph of 6.5.1
(especially the last sentence) and the first paragraph of 6.5.2 and come
up with an explanation where the procedures for 6.5.1, 6.5.2 and 6.5.3
are tied to each other. They are independently run processes. And
nowhere in the process of 6.5.3 is there mention of bringing it to the
IESG or IAB.
Brian's reading is also preferable because in cases where the
unfairness of procedures is sufficiently blatent, the ISOC BOT need
not get involved.
But it also means that if a particular IESG decides that a BCP procedure
(something that has ostensibly achieved rough consensus) is unfair, they
can simply say, "This is unfair, so we're not following it" without any
community review. That's just nuts. Neither the IESG nor the IAB should
be in the business of reviewing whether an extant BCP procedure is fair.
(Of course, before the BCP is published, those considerations should
occur. But doing so afterwards invites all sorts of nonsense.)
Finally, Brian's reading means that the ISOC BOT will have both the
IAB and the IESG's opinions on why the procedures are in fact fair. I
think that is useful input for their process.
"The Trustees shall review the situation in a manner of its own
choosing". They can ask for the opinions of anyone they choose.
pr
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
