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

Re: IAB questions to the IESG regarding Hain site-local appeal

Note - these are my answers, sent without prior consultation with the rest of the IESG. It is possible that I'm unclear, or that my recollection is flawed. I'm sure other community members will remind me if this is the case.

--On 20. oktober 2003 21:29 -0500 Rob Austein <sra@hactrn.net> wrote:

As you are no doubt aware, Tony Hain has lodged an appeal to the IAB
challenging the IESG's decision to reject his appeal of the IPv6
Working Group's declaration of consensus regarding the deprecation of
IPv6 Site Local Addresses.

In undertaking its role with due diligence, the IAB is reviewing the
actions taken by the Working Group and the IESG in their handling of
the appeal.  The IAB is gathering data at this stage, and,
accordingly, has the following questions of the IESG:

1. What evidence did the IESG gather and use in reviewing the appeal?

The IESG used the text of the appeal from Tony Hain, the text of the AD's response to the appeal to the AD, the videotape of the San Francisco meeting, and the mailing list archives. Not all IESG members reviewed every piece of evidence.

The IESG tried to get clarification of the appeal from the appealant and failed; the IESG chose to treat it as an appeal about the declaration of consensus by the chairs at the meeting in San Francisco, so the videotape was regarded as the most central piece of evidence.

Since this was regarded as a process appeal, not an appeal on technical substance, the events that transpired in the meeting, and their relationship to the words about consensus in RFC 2026, were regarded as the central points to consider. 

2. Did the IESG formally interview anyone in connection with the
   appeal, and, if so, is there any record of such interviews?

No. 

3. What process did the IESG use to review the appeal and reach its
   conclusion?

The IESG reviewed the evidence listed above (each on their own) and discussed the matter in the IESG meetings and on the iesg-only mailing list (the one that is without liaisons and IAB members) during the period of (approximately) September 2 to September 22. A member of the IESG was selected to draft the proposed appeal response, and the response was reviewed in detail on the mailing list. The final decision to send the response was reached on an IESG telechat.
The two Internet ADs recused themselves from the decision.

Hope this helps.

Harald