rough consensus (was Re: "trouble maker")

Brian E Carpenter brian at
Fri Jun 27 02:43:57 CEST 2003

I'm sorry for adding to everybody's email load, but it's been pointed 
out to me that what I wrote below might be misinterpreted. 

The allowed grounds for appeal to the ISOC Board are quite
narrow (extract below). What I meant is that an appeal against
the rules of the appeals process, on the grounds that these rules 
themselves are unfair, would be appear to be a valid subject of
appeal to the ISOC Board. 

>From RFC 2026: 

> 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.


Brian E Carpenter wrote:
> "Hallam-Baker, Phillip" wrote:
> >
> > And who hears the appeal? - A committee where the individual responsible for
> > the abuses has audience rights and I do not.
> Not at all. The IAB has several times held open hearings on appeals, for
> good reason. And by the way, unfairness in the appeals process would
> seem like reasonable grounds for a final appeal to the ISOC Board.
> ...
> >
> > If we are going to have a discussion about PROBLEM then discussion of
> > specific failures of the process would seem to be a good starting point.
> But if the appeal process and/or the recall process haven't been used, you
> simply can't assert a process failure.
> > If we are ever going to get to a SOLUTION it would be good to start hearing
> > that others accept that I am not the only person making the complaint about
> > autocratic top down proceedures and that they are having a widespread
> > effect.
> Indeed. One swallow does not a summer make. It would be interesting to know
> how many of the WGs have members who would assert such problems.
>    Brian

More information about the Problem-statement mailing list