Re: Rough consensus? #425 3.5

[Michael StJohns <mstjohns at mindspring.com>]

At 06:25 AM 1/20/2005, Harald Tveit Alvestrand wrote:


> --On torsdag, januar 20, 2005
> 00:00:36 -0500 Michael StJohns <mstjohns at mindspring.com>
> wrote:
>
> > If you (general plural) really
> > feel this section needs to stand I think
> > you need to address at least two issues and narrow them
> > substantially:
> > who has standing to ask for a formal review? and on what specific
> > issues
> > can the IAOC/IAD be reviewed?   If you can't this section needs
> > to go.
> >
> > For standing you've currently got "someone"... *sigh*
> > For issues you've got "a decision of the IAD or IAOC" ...
> > *sigh*  At a
> > minimum, I'd explicitly prohibit review of the IADs actions by any
> > body
> > except the IAOC - direct the review to the IAOC only.
>
> Mike,
>
> the text that I started off this thread with had:
>
> - Standing: Anyone can *ask*, but only the IESG and IAB can demand an
> answer.

Ok - this has two interesting and potential annoying outcomes. 
First outcome is that the IAOC just ignores any non-IESG/IAB query,
second outcome is that the ignoree petitions the IAB/IESG to get their
point to be made and then appeals when the IAB/IESG says no.

> - Issues: Any decision. I think
> this is right - enumerating the issues that can be reviewed is simply the
> wrong level of detail for this document.

Let's try it from the other end.  Try and list 3 things that
can/should be amenable to review and why.  I think you're going to
find you can't or that you're listing things that are so trivial in the
extreme that they really shouldn't be reviewable.  If you can list 3
and can show there are potentially a lot more I'll shut up on this
point.  

> - Who reviews: IAD reviews IAD
> decisions, IAOC reviews IAOC decisions. The read "review" as
> "explain why", not "I override
> you".

Sorry - that's not what "review" means.  In the context,
its 2 : to examine or study again; especially
: to reexamine judicially.   A body does not generally
"review" its own decisions.  It "reconsiders"
them.  If you mean explain, then say explain. 

> The fact that IAOC has oversight
> of the IAD is actually not mentioned here; it's mentioned in enough other
> places.
>
> Of course, Margaret's proposed text is different. But I believe you were
> starting off by objecting to the one I wrote - and I'm not sure I
> understand how you interpreted what I wrote.

Yes - I'm looking at your text.  That was the last consensus text
not hers.  


>                
> Harald

On the general topic of reconsider vs review (and partially on Margaret's
note).  If you want to provide a mechanism for "someone"
to petition for reconsideration of a decision that mechanism needs to
require the "someone" to a) describe why they believe the
decision was made in error, b) a proposed remedy (might be as simple as
say "yes" instead of "no" but may be much more
complex.).  It also needs to set a sunset  or statute of
limitations on when these petitions can be submitted.  



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