Re: Response to appeal dated 22-June-2007

Ted:

To begin with, I want to say that I agree with your perception of the 
appeal process.  It is an important conflict resolution tool.

The first thing that was done in the drafting of the appeal response 
was to list each of the claims in the appeal.  That is why the 
introduction lists them:

       1.  The removal of the WG Chairs violates IETF process;

       2.  The actions taken interfered with the consensus process; and

       3.  There is a conflict of interest.

The appeal response addresses each of these points with much more 
attention to number 2.

>I must repeat, however, that this response appeared to me to focus 
>instead on the
>baseline prerogative of the AD over that issue.

I agree, the response to the first point, which was focused on the 
sentence that I quoted from the appeal in my previous message, was a 
reading on whether the act of replacing the GEOPRIV WG co-chairs 
violated IETF process or not.

However, the response to the second point, I believe, addresses the 
rest of the paragraph that you quoted.

> >You are correct that any action taken by an AD can be appealed.
>
>I appreciate your restatement of the important point that any action 
>taken by an AD can be appealed,
>as well as Sam's personal statement to the same effect.  If you are 
>not willing to consider re-stating
>this appeal, a short statement by the IESG to that effect would be 
>welcome.  As it stands, statements
>by individual IESG members have no binding effect on later IESGs and 
>the community is not necessarily
>notified when the interpretations change.

I'd like to know if this is a topic of concern to people.

>As  a concrete suggestion:
>
>"The IESG re-affirms that its reading of RFC 2026 is that any action 
>made by an Area
>Director or the IESG may by made the subject of the conflict 
>resolution mechanisms
>set out in Section 6.5 of RFC 2026.  The IESG further wishes to 
>highlight that the primary
>aim of the appeals mechanism set out there is to resolve conflicts 
>and move the IETF
>as a whole towards consensus, and it urges all participants to 
>approach them in that light."

I will put your proposed text on the IESG telechat agenda for 
consideration as an IESG statement.

Russ