OPEN ISSUE: Appeals Path

[Margaret Wasserman]

Hi Jim,

At 11:27 PM 5/16/2003 -0400, Bound, Jim wrote:
>the member should go to the AD, if the AD is not enough the IETF Chair
>and if that don't work go to IAB and if that don't work feed WG chair to
>pig or give up :--)

The only case where we are currently discussing the appeals process
is the ISOC-driven approach.  In this case, the ISOC President
serves as the "responsible AD".  So, the appeals process would go
to the ISOC President, then to the IESG, then up the chain?

This might work if we choose this approach, but it would need to
be documented.

>the key is that there is no conflict of interest in the chain and all
>parties are in positions based on absolute skill set and a nomcom
>process that has no conflict of interest to elect IAB and IESG updates
>who in turn appoints WG chairs.

The question of whether the process will be IESG-driven or ISOC-driven
is separate from chair selection.  We could use a nomcom-like method
to select the WG chairs, regardless of which group provides WG
oversight.

Margaret