Re: Response to the Appeal by [...]

[Pete Resnick <presnick at qualcomm.com>]

On 7/18/06 at 11:13 AM +0200, Brian E Carpenter wrote:

> Speaking only for myself, I have always read the words "Further 
> recourse is available..." at the beginning of section 6.5.3 of RFC 
> 2026 to mean that an appeal to the ISOC Board can only follow 
> rejection of an appeal by both the IESG and IAB.

I simply don't see how it can be read that way, especially if you 
read through 6.5 in its entirely. It probably would have caused less 
confusion if Scott had said "Other than the above, the only grounds 
for appeal are in cases...".

> Therefore, in my opinion, it is required for the IESG to consider 
> such grounds for appeal, and to decide whether to accept or reject 
> them.

I think this is an error, and I urge the IESG and the IAB not to do 
so in the future.

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

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