OPEN ISSUE: Appeals Path

Spencer Dawkins spencer at mcsr-labs.org
Wed May 21 16:01:27 CEST 2003


Dear Melinda,

I had the (mis?)understanding that the current version of the draft
did not recognize that ISOC reviewed process changes anyway,
as part of providing liability insurance coverage for process leadership.

Brian posted this as his last comment in 
http://www.alvestrand.no/pipermail/problem-statement/2003-May/001591.html.

So I think the issue is still a no-op, just for slightly different reasons.

Spencer

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Melinda Shore" <mshore at cisco.com>
To: <problem-statement at alvestrand.no>
Sent: Wednesday, May 21, 2003 12:41 PM
Subject: Re: OPEN ISSUE: Appeals Path


> The issue raised was this:
> 
> >- [The ISOC-driven] approach does not require an explicit appeals
> >   process, because an IETF Plenary is used as the basis for approval,
> >   and it is that body from which the IETF draws its authority.
> >   [OPEN ISSUE: Do we have consensus that a defined appeals
> >   process is not required for this option?]
> 
> We were unable to reach consensus on this (yet), but since
> the ISOC-driven approach has been rejected by the WG, this
> question is academic.
> 
> Melinda


More information about the Problem-statement mailing list