appeal mechanisms was Re: Ombuds-process

[Margaret Wasserman]

At 11:15 AM 6/30/2003 -0400, Keith Moore wrote:
>] BUT, there would be no point in appealing the IESG's rejection of a
>] document, because the IAB cannot overrule the IESG and publish the
>] document, even if the IAB believes that the IESG made a technical or
>] process error in rejecting the document.
>
>if that's the case, we should probably fix it.  at the least the IAB should be
>able to remand the document to IESG for consideration according to different
>criteria.

This is what RFC 2026 says:

    "If an individual should disagree with an action taken by the IESG in
    this process, that person should first discuss the issue with the
    ISEG Chair. If the IESG Chair is unable to satisfy the complainant
    then the IESG as a whole should re-examine the action taken, along
    with input from the complainant, and determine whether any further
    action is needed.  The IESG shall issue a report on its review of the
    complaint to the IETF.

    Should the complainant not be satisfied with the outcome of the IESG
    review, an appeal may be lodged to the IAB. The IAB shall then review
    the situation and attempt to resolve it in a manner of its own
    choosing and report to the IETF on the outcome of its review.

    If circumstances warrant, the IAB may direct that an IESG decision be
    annulled, and the situation shall then be as it was before the IESG
    decision was taken. The IAB may also recommend an action to the IESG,
    or make such other recommendations as it deems fit. The IAB may not,
    however, pre-empt the role of the IESG by issuing a decision which
    only the IESG is empowered to make."

So, the IAB may recommend an action to the IESG, but it can't force
the publication of an RFC.

Margaret