On 7/19/06 at 9:02 AM -0400, Thomas Narten wrote:
...it makes no sense to appeal to ISOC that "the process itself was
unfair and has failed to produce a proper result", if there wasn't
first an appeal on actual substance that didn't result in the
appropriate outcome.
But, technically, I would not expect the appeal to the IESG/IAB and
the one to the ISOC to be exactly the same. In the former case, the
appeal is presumably on actual decisions and actions made in WGs, by
the IESG, etc. In the latter case, the argument is much more about
the process itself (and how it failed to "protect the rights of all
parties in a fair and open Internet Standards Process" as indicated
in 2026) and is less focussed on the details that led to the
original appeal.
On this we might agree (though I think this is something different than
what Brian and Sam are saying): You can read "Further recourse..." to
mean that you can't appeal a process on the grounds of fairness unless
you have been affected by that process. But I think we also agree that
you don't bring the question of fairness of the process to IESG/IAB, but
straight to ISOC: The appeal you bring to the IESG/IAB is different from
the one you bring to ISOC.
On 7/20/06 at 11:12 AM -0400, Sam Hartman wrote:
Having read 6.5 in its entirety multiple times, I agree with Brian's
reading not yours.
OK, for the sake of argument let's assume that we read it like you and
Brian. Let's ask some questions: If I think that the way technical
choices are made in a WG is unfair, do I bring that to the WG chair to
adjudicate first? That's what I would do under 6.5.1. Or, since it is a
procedural question, do I bring it straight to the IESG chair as 6.5.2
requires me to do? Do WG process questions (as defined in 6.5.1) go to
the IESG chair (as defined in 6.5.2)?
