Subject: bcp-02: Section 3.4

From: Sam Hartman <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 10 Dec 2004 04:55:22 -0500

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-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

---

From: [email-masked]
Date: Sat, 11 Dec 2004 13:05:54 +0100

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.

---

From: Sam Hartman <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 12 Dec 2004 15:41:54 -0500

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