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

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

In message <7D5D48D2CAA3D84C813F5B154F43B15502331610@nl0006exch001u.nl.lucent.c
om>, "Wijnen, Bert (Bert)" 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.
>> 
>Well, then see my other email. Specifically, since the AD will need
>to get IESG agreement beforehand... why would we not uphold the
>decision?
>
That's only the case for decisions on suspension of posting; it's 
rarely a factor in an appeal.  

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