Subject: draft-ietf-iasa-bcp-02: section 3.4 - appeals

From: [email-masked] (Scott Bradner)
Date: Sun, 12 Dec 2004 20:50:11 -0500 (EST)

open from last version

I think that the text on appeals is still not clear enough (based
on other messages to the list, other people agree)

I am very leary of any unlimited ability for IAD (or IAOC) decisions
to be appealed - anything like that would be a too easy DoS vector

I am most worried about any ability to appeal a decision to award a 
contract (for a function, for consulting, or for equipment) - I do not
think I should be able to appeal if the IAD decided buy a Windows
computer just because I happen to think that Macs are better/safer - I
do not think that the looser in a bidding process should be able to
appeal the IAD selecting someone other than the lowest cost bidder
(because, for example the lowest cost bidder is a deadbeat)

during the discussion I have come to the conclusion that we need 
something more than the ability to racal the members of the IAOC - maybe
the ability to appeal with a claim that a published evaluaion process
was not followed - but I'd not like any such appeal to be able to 
easily (or at all) cancel a signed contract (there might be significant 
liabilities if that were possible)

I do not now have any suggestion as to wording but I do not see that
this issue is closed

Scott

_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

---

From: Harald Tveit Alvestrand <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 13 Dec 2004 06:29:40 +0100

Reminder: current text of appeals is this:

   If someone believes that the IAOC has violated the IAOC rules and
   procedures, he or she can ask the IETF leadership to investigate the
   matter, using the same procedure as is used for appeals of procedural
   issues in the IETF, starting with the IESG.

   If the IESG, IAB or the ISOC Board of Trustees find that procedures
   have been violated, they may advise the IAOC, but do not have
   authority to overturn or change a decision of the IAOC.

   The IAOC plays no role in appeals of WG Chair, IESG, or IAB
   decisions.

This is considerably restricted from version -01, based in part on your 
previoius comments on that version.

I don't see how to interpret your current comments in relation to this 
text, since:

- IAD decisions cannot be appealed
- Only procedure violations can be appealed
- The bodies appealed to can only advise the IAOC, they cannot (for 
instance) overturn a contract.

Indeed, I wonder if we have gone too far in limiting the power of appeal in 
this version (see others' comments).

Could you please help me understand whether you think the current text 
*still* allows too many frivolous appeals and too much power to the 
appealant?

                  Harald

---

From: [email-masked] (Scott Bradner)
Date: Mon, 13 Dec 2004 08:11:02 -0500 (EST)

1/ I am not alone in worrying about this section

2/ the text does not actiually say that decisions of the IAD
   can not be appealed (also as I understand other comments,
   some people would like to have that ability)

3/ the text does not catually say that only procedural issues can
   be appealed (it implies that but does not say that) 

4/ there is no text saying what the limit of the investigation 
   might be (for example - would the IAD have to turn over to
   the succession of appeal bodies confidential information
   about a particular contract awarding?

I'd like to see an appeals section that says something like:

   Only IAOC processes can be appealed, actions and processes of the
   IAD cannot be appealed.  Decisions themselves cannot be
   appealed.  For example, the awarding of a contract to someone
   other than the lowest bidder can not be appealed.  Appeals are
   limited to claims that published IAOC procedures have not been 
   followed, for example that a pubished process that called for a
   2 week public comment period only had a one week comment period 
   in a particular case.

I think that the added text makes clear what Harald said was the intent
but I note that other commenters have said that the right of appeal 
was already too limited

Scott

---

From: Margaret Wasserman <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 13 Dec 2004 08:27:25 -0500

>I don't see how to interpret your current comments in relation to 
>this text, since:
>
>Indeed, I wonder if we have gone too far in limiting the power of 
>appeal in this version (see others' comments).

I personally think that we have gone too far.

I don't think that we want to set-up a situation where the only way 
the community can speak forcefully if it doesn't like an IAOC 
decision is to recall people...  That is too high a bar of entry for 
expressing community disagreement with the decisions/conduct of a 
(set of) individual(s) regarding a single incident.

Personally, I think that the concern about DoS attacks is unfounded. 
We don't require multiple signatures for appeal of WG decisions, and 
that hasn't resulted in DoS attacks...  I hope that more IETF folks 
will continue to feel passionately about the standards process than 
about administrative decisions.

And, I think that we could say something to address the concern about 
contract signing, etc.  Maybe:  In cases where appeals concern 
legally-binding actions of the IAOC (hiring, signed contracts, etc.), 
the bodies handling the appeal may advise the IAOC, but are not 
authorized to make or unmake any legally binding agreements on the 
part of IASA.  This is similar to the wording that doesn't allow the 
IAB to approve a document as part of an appeal response.

Margaret

---

From: Jari Arkko <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 13 Dec 2004 17:12:35 +0200

Margaret Wasserman wrote:

> I don't think that we want to set-up a situation where the only way the 
> community can speak forcefully if it doesn't like an IAOC decision is to 
> recall people...  That is too high a bar of entry for expressing 
> community disagreement with the decisions/conduct of a (set of) 
> individual(s) regarding a single incident.
> 
> Personally, I think that the concern about DoS attacks is unfounded. We 
> don't require multiple signatures for appeal of WG decisions, and that 
> hasn't resulted in DoS attacks...  I hope that more IETF folks will 
> continue to feel passionately about the standards process than about 
> administrative decisions.

I think that we need both some attention to the "DoS attack" as
well as appeals process without having to recall people.

> authorized to make or unmake any legally binding agreements on the part 
> of IASA.  This is similar to the wording that doesn't allow the IAB to 
> approve a document as part of an appeal response.

This text looks good, and solves both concerns.

--Jari