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

["Wijnen, Bert (Bert)" <bwijnen@lucent.com>]

> >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.
> 
Well, then see my other email. Specifically, since the AD will need
to get IESG agreement beforehand... why would we not uphold the
decision?

Bert