Re: Response to the Appeal by JFC Morfin dated 2006-02-17

[Pete Resnick <presnick at qualcomm.com>]

On 7/10/06 at 2:05 PM -0400, IESG Secretary wrote:

> 1. The appeal asserts that RFC 3683 (BCP 83) is illegal, and 
> specifically in conflict with certain provisions of the Universal 
> Declaration of Human Rights. In particular it cites Article 10 
> (right to public hearing), 11 (presumption of innocence), 12 
> (privacy and reputation), 19 (freedom of expression) and 2 
> (non-discrimination).
>
> Firstly, any appeal against the approval of RFC 3683 was due within 
> two months of that approval, i.e. by February 17, 2004.
>
> Secondly, the IESG believes that the Universal Declaration of Human 
> Rights does not apply to the IETF's internal rules. IETF 
> participants are assumed to be aware of IETF process rules before 
> choosing to participate, and their participation is voluntary.
>
> This part of the appeal is therefore rejected.

I think the IESG was correct to reject this part of the appeal, but I 
believe they rejected it for the wrong reason. The IESG simply should 
have not considered this part of the appeal at all. RFC 2026, section 
6.5.3 is clearly applicable on this point:

6.5.3 Questions of Applicable Procedure

   Further recourse is available only in cases in which the procedures
   themselves (i.e., the procedures described in this document) are
   claimed to be inadequate or insufficient to the protection of the
   rights of all parties in a fair and open Internet Standards Process.
   Claims on this basis may be made to the Internet Society Board of
   Trustees.  The President of the Internet Society shall acknowledge
   such an appeal within two weeks, and shall at the time of
   acknowledgment advise the petitioner of the expected duration of the
   Trustees' review of the appeal.  The Trustees shall review the
   situation in a manner of its own choosing and report to the IETF on
   the outcome of its review.

Claims that RFC 3683 (a BCP, a document that has presumably already 
passed community consensus) is unfair ought not be taken up by the 
IESG or the IAB, but can only be taken up by the ISOC Board.

Appeals of this sort should not be brought to the IESG (or the IAB). 
I suggest that the IESG and the IAB always decline to decide such 
issues in the future should similar appeals come up.

pr
--
Pete Resnick <http://www.qualcomm.com/~presnick/>
QUALCOMM Incorporated

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