[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Tod Glassey Appeal

The appeals procedure we use isn't really all that clearly defined. And the issue of recusals does not have a tradition on it.

Here's what I wrote in draft-iesg-process, in what feels a long time ago:

7. IESG appeals procedure

The formal appeals procedure is described in RFC 2026 section 6.5.

An appeal to the IESG is initiated by email to the IETF Chair, copied
to the IESG secretary. If the appeal is not clear about whether or
not it is an appeal, what is being appealed, or what the proposed
remedies are, there may be a dialogue between the chair and the
appealing person(s) to clarify the appeal.

The IESG will then ask the responsible AD to give her opinion of the
matter, as evidenced by the previous required step of discussing the
matter with the responsible AD.

The IESG will then discuss the matter in a telechat without the IAB
liaison or the IAB chair being present (in order to keep the
separation from the responsible body for a possible appeal), and will
usually assign to some AD (not the responsible AD) the task of
writing a draft response.

When the proposed response text is ready, the IESG will discuss it by
email (using a special mailing list that contains only the IESG
members), and in a new telechat where the IAB has been asked to
leave. When the IESG agrees upon the text, it is sent to the
appealant and to the ietf-announce list, as well as being archived on
the IESG's public web pages.

I think having the implicated IESG members recuse themselves from the decision-making discussion makes sense, but not in the fact-finding discussion - and in the past, we have done neither.

Harald

--On 15. august 2003 11:08 +0200 "Wijnen, Bert (Bert)" <bwijnen@lucent.com> wrote:

Harald has asked me to take the lead on dealing with this
one. I think the first thing to do is to publish it on
the http://www.ietf.org/IESG/Appeals.html web page.

I think that posting the complete email (as per below) there
is the thing to do. Anyone sees any issues with that?

Second step then probably is that I write Todd that I will
be "shepherding" his appeal in/through the IESG and inform
him that I will respond when we are done.

I am threading carefully here, cause this is my first time
to handle an appeal to IESG... and cause this guy is already
threatening to involve lawyers.

Funny that he informas us that Jorge is one of his attorneys.
Would Jorge not be in a "conflict of interest" situation here?

Thanks,
Bert

-----Original Message-----
From: todd glassey [mailto:todd.glassey@worldnet.att.net]
Sent: woensdag 6 augustus 2003 4:14
To: iesg@ietf.org; chair@ietf.org; problem-statement@alvestrand.no
Cc: degarmo5@earthlink.net; Contreras, Jorge
Subject: Official notice of appeal on suspension rights.


Be advised that this is an official submission of an appeal on the
suspension of my posting rights as per Harald Alverstrand, Chair of the
IETF. I want to get this matter expedited so we can either reconcile this
or take it into an open court.

Harald's commentary regarding my posting is ridiculous.


    With regard to my posting 20% of the list's traffic, the 2418 clause
that calls this a Denial of Service Attack is in fact a smoke screen to
allow the IETF to set limits on how many postings any one person can make,
but only in arbitrary matters, clearly causing a tortuous interference
with my participation since issues are being resolved that I cannot
participate in.  And unless the IESG or the IETF is going to formally
place a specific limit on the number of responses that one can submit to
postings, then this matter is clearly an act of prejudicial harassment of
the IETF Chair and the WG Chairs to suppress that the IPR group is
essentially not in my opinion fixing problems but rather making the
process and the disclosure issues more painful.


Further, the Chair commented that I had "Threatened legal action" against
several list members, and I would like to see specific evidence to this
"fact" as it was used, since I clearly deny that this is true. Please
produce the specific commentary and explain how it was threatening. What I
have asked several officers of the IETF and the IESG is whether there is
financial coverage for them in operating the organization as any good
entity would have. They have refused to answer this in any way. I have
also voiced an opinion that the IETF's policies are bringing it head-on
into areas where legal action will not be avoidable but I have not said
specifically that I would sue anyone. I don't make silly threats, I act
upon the causative actions in appropriate manners only.

Finally the commentary that "I have been warned" repeatedly by the WG
Chairs to not post off topic mailings is ridiculous and contrary to the
IETF's charter and operating process, and it must formally take notice of
this or face the problems that this refusal to accept the obvious brings.
By their very nature, the IETF WG' Lists MUST accept all postings or it
is impossible to disclose new ideas on the list, making the process of
submitting an I-D ***the only way that new ideas can be submitted*** or
can be vetted and for WG Chairs to suppress is contrary to the IETF's
operational models (no matter how hokey they are) as defined in RFC2026,
RFC2223, and RFC2418.

Please be advised, that I will continue to escalate this matter until
resolution is forthcoming, and yes Jorge, the other person on the cc line
is one of my attorneys.

Todd Glassey