appeal mechanisms was Re: Ombuds-process

[hardie at qualcomm.com]

Hi Scott,
	The only appeal heard when I was on the IAB dealt with
a document being advanced, not being rejected, but we did
talk about the process fairly extensively.  My understanding
of the consensus of the then-IAB was that the IAB could
annul a decision of the IESG, but that doing so returned
something to the state before the decision.  This came out
this section of 2026:

    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.

	In the case of a decision not to publish a standards track document,
the state previous to the decision (the document is not yet published)
and the state after (the document is not published) are functionally
the same.  So the IAB rendering a decision does not trigger the
publication, the IESG issuing the document onto the standards track
in compliance with the IAB recommendation does.  While the result may be,
again, functionally the same, the distinction helps preserve the
separation of function that provides the basis of the check and balance.
	Since you wrote 2026, you are, of course, uniquely suited
to tell us whether that is what you meant, but I thought I would share
my understanding of the interpretation it has been given by at least one IAB.
			regards,
				Ted Hardie



At 6:17 PM -0400 6/30/03, Scott Bradner 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,
>
>I do not see anything in the appeal process that prevents the IAB
>from tellingthe IESG that the rejection was wrong and that the
>document should be published
>
>Scott