Re: Adminrest: section 3.5b

["Spencer Dawkins" <spencer at mcsr-labs.org>]

Scott,


> draft-ietf-iasa-bcp-01 section 3.5 goes on to say:
>   Decisions of IAOC members or the entire IAOC are subject to appeal
>   using the procedures described in RFC 2026 [RFC2026].  Appeals of
>   IAOC decisions go first to the IESG, then continue up the chain as
>   necessary to the IAB and the ISOC Board of Trustees.
>
> I do not like this
>
> the way its written a random person could appeal the awarding of a
> contract to vendor and thereby potentially perpetrating a denial of
> service on the IETF while the appeal process was being followed 
> through
>
> I do not know that there are no decisions of the IAOC members or the
> entire IAOC that could be appeled usefully but I can not think of 
> one
> offhand - I think this clase should be removed - or significantally
> restricted in what can be appealed (and I'd say a null set)

I agree, based on your use of the words "usefully appealed".

I just finished typing the Plenary minutes from IETF 61, where Harald 
pointed out that he wasn't chosen for his depth of experience as a 
contract administrator. I'm assuming this is true of most of the rest 
of IESG and IAB. If we're moving from the realm of appealing protocol 
design choices to appealing contract award choices, we probably need 
to think about this more than saying "just use the 2026 appeal 
process".

WAY too close to saying "just use IPSEC" :-)

Spencer 



_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf at ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf