Re: Fwd: Re: next steps on reviewing the appeal process

["Steven M. Bellovin" <smb@research.att.com>]

In message <5.1.0.14.2.20030922084212.043051e8@mail.windriver.com>, Margaret Wa
sserman writes:
>
>Could we maybe talk about this, sometime?
>
>Separate from Todd Glassey's appeal, which I believe was properly
>handled give our current processes, I do think that our appeal
>processes could use some improvement.
>
>In particular:
>
>         - It is ambiguous whether a decision stays in force
>                 during an appeal.  This caused some questions
>                 in the IPv6 WG for both of our recent appeals,
>                 not just in Todd's case.

This is worth talking about -- I raised the issue in Todd's case.  To 
be sure, I also noted that under American law, an appellant's right to 
a stay does depend in part on the judge's assessment of his chances of 
winning.

>
>         - I think that we should seriously consider whether we
>                 are handling appeals in a sufficiently timely
>                 manner.

I'm not worried about this one.

		--Steve Bellovin, http://www.research.att.com/~smb