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

Re: The RFC2418 Appellet processes

Speaking as the AD whose decision is under appeal, and thus an interested party in the case.....

--On 10. september 2003 07:24 -0700 todd glassey <todd.glassey@worldnet.att.net> wrote:

The Appeal Process of 2418's Suspension of Posting Rights provisions is
totally non-workable, broken, and a joke,  and I have decided to take it
on as a personal effort to see that it is changed since I have just been
subjected to its abuse.

    1)    The Open Loop model of the IESG's meetings cannot be used as the
arbitration process for this type of appeal since its effects are
immediate and the asynchronous meeting style of the iesg in these matters
causes further damage to the appellate. All appeals must be adjudicated
in a timely manner

        a)    To that end the IESG is formally put on notice that it MUST
adjudicate a appeal within 72 hours of its being formally filed with them
or it cannot allow the sanctioning of "restraints" as per ss 3.2 of
RFC2418.

RFC 2026 specifically says:

   [NOTE:  These procedures intentionally and explicitly do not
   establish a fixed maximum time period that shall be considered
   "reasonable" in all cases.  The Internet Standards Process places a
   premium on consensus and efforts to achieve it, and deliberately
   foregoes deterministically swift execution of procedures in favor of
   a latitude within which more genuine technical agreements may be
   reached.]

While appeals on mailing list suspensions may seem meaningless when they take longer than the suspension period, the function that the appeal can have in this case is to evaluate whether the person making the decision showed correct judgment, and if necessary to lay down guidelines for later events of the same nature.

As such, an appeal should not be decided lightly.

And - while this may come as a surprise to some - IESG members do not work on IETF matters 24 hours a day, 7 days a week.

        b)    The Appeal Process must provide for the staying of "the
order of suspension" also until the appeal is adjudicated by the IESG as
well.

The IESG chose to evaluate this issue when evaluating the appeal at its first meeting. While I cannot speak to what made them make that decision, the IESG deliberately chose not to stay the order of suspension.

    2)    A formal appeal process MUST be put in place to allow the
appellate to introduce evidence on their behalf for consideration
otherwise there is no mechanism to enter material into the record of the
appeal.

The appeal text filed by the appealant is publicly filed.
See <http://www.ietf.org/IESG/APPEALS/todd-glassey-appeal.txt>.
The mailing list archives, which were the basis of the original decision, are public.
What more evidence do you need to introduce?

    3)    A review process above the Appeal (possibly the American
Arbitration Association) must be put in place to insure the culpability
and honesty in the IESG as well.

See RFC 2026 section 6.5.3.

Otherwise there is no possible justice in this model and it is purely
abusive in nature.

While this may seem partisan, I see no necessary relationship between "justice" and "Todd Glassey gets his way".