Subject: Re: Response to the Appeal by JFC Morfin dated 2006-02-17

From: Avri Doria <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 11 Jul 2006 14:17:33 -0400

Hi,

I do not wish to enter the substance of this appeal for i am  
qualified neither by position nor training to adjudicate on the  
justice of an appeal.

But I do want to question one paragraph that has been published on  
behalf of the leadership of this organization.  This questioning is  
not in relation to the appeal itself, but rather to the acceptability  
of the statement in itself.

On 10 jul 2006, at 14.05, IESG Secretary wrote:

> Secondly, the IESG believes that the Universal Declaration of
> Human Rights does not apply to the IETF's internal rules.
> IETF participants are assumed to be aware of IETF process rules
> before choosing to participate, and their participation is voluntary.

Without making any personal judgement about the correctness of such a  
hypothetical claim, I could understand an IESG decision that the  
Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) did not apply in this  
particular case. I do not, however,  understand a categorical  
statement to the effect that the IETF, with its rules, is not subject  
to the UDHR because it is a voluntary association.

While the IETF itself is not a signatory to the UDHR, most, if not  
all, of the nations in which the IESG members live  are signatories  
and the host country of the ISOC corporation, the IETF umbrella, is  
also a signatory.  I believe that in all things we do, we are always  
subject to the UDHR.  And I worry about an organization, especially  
one I believe in, making a categorical claim that human rights, as  
defined by the UDHR, do not apply within this organization.  We may  
be here to do technical work, but we should, in my opinion, never  
leave the responsibilities of humanity at the door.  To claim that  
something so fundamental as human rights do not apply within the  
confines of the IETF is too all encompassing a statement, and one I  
don't feel can be allowed to stand without at least a little protest.

To quote  Eleanor Roosevelt  "The destiny of human rights is in the  
hands of all our citizens in all our communities" .  I think this  
applies to the IETF community as much as it does to any other  
community.  I hope that the IAB, whatever it may decide on the merits  
of the appeal in question, will see fit to repudiate the claim that  
the UDHR does apply to the IETF or its rules.

a.

_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

---

From: JORDI PALET MARTINEZ <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 11 Jul 2006 14:37:34 -0400

Hi Avri, all,

I totally agree on this. In fact, I've sent similar comments about this
statement to Brian yesterday when read the appeal response email.

All the organizations are oblige by higher lever laws, which can never be
ignored or even challenged with this kind of statement, and we should be in
the IETF case even more serious and careful because the international
participation.

I'm not a lawyer and may be wrong, but I even think this is common sense
(w/o entering on the discussion about what is common sense, by the way).

Regards,
Jordi

> De: Avri Doria <[email-masked]>
> Responder a: <[email-masked]>
> Fecha: Tue, 11 Jul 2006 14:17:33 -0400
> Para: <[email-masked]>
> Asunto: Re: Response to the Appeal by JFC Morfin dated 2006-02-17
> 
> Hi,
> 

**********************************************
The IPv6 Portal: http://www.ipv6tf.org

Bye 6Bone. Hi, IPv6 !
http://www.ipv6day.org

This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or confidential. The information is intended to be for the use of the individual(s) named above. If you are not the intended recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, including attached files, is prohibited.

---

From: Sam Hartman <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 11 Jul 2006 15:41:34 -0400

I don't think the IESg intended to imply that the IETF does not care
about human rights.

The IETF does have its own process rules intended to insure fairness,
and section 6.5.3 of RFC 2026 provides relief in cases where those
rules are inadequate.

However the IESG at least believes that while the spirit of the UDHR
applies to the IETF, the letter of the law does not.

In other words, I personally believe it would have been more
reasonable for Jefsey to complain that the process was not fair using
the UDHR as a example of fairness rather than to directly refer to the
UDHR.

It is my personal opinion that Jefsey was trying to be legalistic, and
the IESG was legalistic in its response.

--Sam

---

From: "JFC (Jefsey) Morfin" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 12 Jul 2006 00:33:07 +0200

>the IESG was legalistic in its response.

Dear Sam,
I only want one single thing: interoperability between the internet 
of the users and the RFC 3935 IETF Internet as long as it survives. 
Between a Multilingual, Multicultural, Multilateral, Multinational, 
Multitechnology etc. Internet and the outdated Internationalized 
Internet which delays it for reasons the IAB clarified a long ago in RFC 3869.

RFC 3935 says "The mission of the IETF is to produce ... documents 
that influence the way people design, use, and manage the Internet 
... [] The Internet isn't value-neutral, and neither is the IETF.  We 
want the Internet to be useful for communities that share our 
commitment to openness and fairness.  We embrace technical concepts 
such as decentralized control, edge-user empowerment and sharing of 
resources, because those concepts resonate with the core values of 
the IETF community.  These concepts have little to do with the 
technology that's possible, and much to do with the technology that 
we choose to create."

I wanted the IESG to clearly state what are the core values of the 
IETF community and their legitimacy to influence the world. Because 
they have little to do with the technology that's possible, and much 
to do with the technology that the IETF leaders (cf. RFC 3935) and 
the IESG choose to create. I wanted the IESG to document what it 
considers as "openness and fairness". To show our core difference.

Because the technology that is possible and I choose to create has 
much to do with human rights and I believe it is technically far more 
efficient for that very reason. The reason why we oppose is described 
in http://nicso.org/equilang.htm the WG-LTRU opposed.

Legalistic, elastic, autocratic... I know of no other way to consider 
the HR for technicians than what they must live by to make sure the 
technology they produce will work better for the human beings. 
A      nd will eventually lead to better economic development.

Also, I know of no other way to respond an appeal than to speak the Truth.

jfc

---

From: Pete Resnick <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 17 Jul 2006 09:23:14 -0500

On 7/10/06 at 2:05 PM -0400, IESG Secretary wrote:

>1. The appeal asserts that RFC 3683 (BCP 83) is illegal, and 
>specifically in conflict with certain provisions of the Universal 
>Declaration of Human Rights. In particular it cites Article 10 
>(right to public hearing), 11 (presumption of innocence), 12 
>(privacy and reputation), 19 (freedom of expression) and 2 
>(non-discrimination).
>
>Firstly, any appeal against the approval of RFC 3683 was due within 
>two months of that approval, i.e. by February 17, 2004.
>
>Secondly, the IESG believes that the Universal Declaration of Human 
>Rights does not apply to the IETF's internal rules. IETF 
>participants are assumed to be aware of IETF process rules before 
>choosing to participate, and their participation is voluntary.
>
>This part of the appeal is therefore rejected.

I think the IESG was correct to reject this part of the appeal, but I 
believe they rejected it for the wrong reason. The IESG simply should 
have not considered this part of the appeal at all. RFC 2026, section 
6.5.3 is clearly applicable on this point:

6.5.3 Questions of Applicable Procedure

    Further recourse is available only in cases in which the procedures
    themselves (i.e., the procedures described in this document) are
    claimed to be inadequate or insufficient to the protection of the
    rights of all parties in a fair and open Internet Standards Process.
    Claims on this basis may be made to the Internet Society Board of
    Trustees.  The President of the Internet Society shall acknowledge
    such an appeal within two weeks, and shall at the time of
    acknowledgment advise the petitioner of the expected duration of the
    Trustees' review of the appeal.  The Trustees shall review the
    situation in a manner of its own choosing and report to the IETF on
    the outcome of its review.

Claims that RFC 3683 (a BCP, a document that has presumably already 
passed community consensus) is unfair ought not be taken up by the 
IESG or the IAB, but can only be taken up by the ISOC Board.

Appeals of this sort should not be brought to the IESG (or the IAB). 
I suggest that the IESG and the IAB always decline to decide such 
issues in the future should similar appeals come up.

pr
-- 
Pete Resnick <http://www.qualcomm.com/~presnick/>
QUALCOMM Incorporated

---

From: Pete Resnick <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 17 Jul 2006 09:23:14 -0500

pr

---

From: Frank Ellermann <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 17 Jul 2006 20:52:34 +0200

Pete Resnick wrote:

 [6.5.3] 
>| Further recourse is available only in cases in which the procedures
>| themselves (i.e., the procedures described in this document) are
>| claimed to be inadequate or insufficient to the protection of the
>| rights of all parties in a fair and open Internet Standards Process.
>| Claims on this basis may be made to the Internet Society Board of
>| Trustees.
[...]
 
> issues in the future should similar appeals come up.

The question then shifts from "is there a problem with 'this' 
(whatever, here 3683) document" to "is there a general problem 
with the standards process up to and including the IAB appeal".

Refusing to address such issues could be interpreted as some
kind of evidence by the claimant.  Better they try it even if
they get it wrong - after all this is IMO about an "attempt to
enforce netiquette" on two mailing lists, not a "human rights" 
question for the UN.

Frank

---

From: Pete Resnick <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 17 Jul 2006 16:34:09 -0500

On 7/17/06 at 8:52 PM +0200, Frank Ellermann wrote:

>Pete Resnick wrote:
>
>>Appeals of this sort should not be brought to the IESG (or the 
>>IAB). I suggest that the IESG and the IAB always decline to decide 
>>such issues in the future should similar appeals come up.
>
>(whatever, here 3683) document" to "is there a general problem with 
>the standards process up to and including the IAB appeal".

No. In this particular case, the appeal was specifically about the 
fairness of the procedure as documented in RFC 3683, not about the 
process in adopting 3683. See 
<http://www.ietf.org/IESG/APPEALS/morfin-appeal-against-appeal.txt> 
where it says:

"I am not interested in this part in the conformance of the IESG 
procedure with RFC 3683, nor in the particulars of the case. They are 
addressed in other parts. I am interested in the general conformance 
of RFC 3683 (as experimented through this case) with the Human 
Rights. From my experience RFC 3863 PR-actions are in violation of 
the most elementary rights of the persons."

RFC 2026 is pretty plain on this. Section 6.5 allows for 3 kinds of appeals:

- 6.5.1 says that you can appeal a WG decision on the grounds that 
your view hasn't been heard or it's technically wrong. In that case, 
6.5.1 says the appeal goes WG-chair->AD->IESG->IAB->end.

- 6.5.2 says that you can appeal an IESG action on the grounds that 
it didn't follow the process. In that case, 6.5.2 says the appeal 
goes IESG-chair->IESG->IAB->end.

- 6.5.3 says that you can appeal on the grounds that the procedures 
themselves are unfair. In that case, 6.5.3 says the appeal goes 
ISOC-BoT->end.

This appeal was (as stated by the appellant) clearly one of type 
6.5.3. It (and appeals like it) should therefore be rejected without 
consideration by the IESG or the IAB. The appellant should bring them 
directly to the ISOC Board of Trustees. (*Do not pass Go. Do not 
collect $200.*)

pr
-- 
Pete Resnick <http://www.qualcomm.com/~presnick/>
QUALCOMM Incorporated - Direct phone: (858)651-4478, Fax: (858)651-1102

---

From: JFC Morfin <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 17 Jul 2006 23:08:11 +0200

Dear Pete,
your point is well made. An appeal to ISOC will be _considered_ after 
the appeal to the IAB (this is a part of the DoS imposed on me - and 
on the competing solution I introduced at the ITU/UNESCO meeting in 
Geneva :-)). However, there are four aspects to be considered.

1. the way the RFC 3683 is written. This is the point you address. 
Appeals period is over. IESG was wrong considering it.
2. what are RFC 3683 PR-actions as experimented (this is not the 
text, but the "running code" part). Usually running code is prior to 
the final text. In this case it is after. This PR-action is the first 
engaged. The two months delay is respected. IESG was wrong not considering it.
3. the way the RFC 3683 is applied. This is not the case addressed in 
that part, as you underline it. IESG did not considered it.
4. what the IESG's answer implies concerning the IETF core values. 
This is because RFC 3935 (written by the person who called for the 
PR-action) says the IETF technology is not neutral to these core values.

I indicated interoperability with the IETF solutions is my main 
concern. When the IESG answers an appeal it should speak the truth, 
this is why I introduced the point this way. IESG had to answer the 
point and I think the IESG spoke the truth. I do not like that truth 
because it leads to non-interoperable and not ethically acceptable 
situations (as we already experiment some).
jfc

At 16:23 17/07/2006, Pete Resnick wrote:

>I think the IESG was correct to reject this part of the appeal, but 
>I believe they rejected it for the wrong reason. The IESG simply 
>should have not considered this part of the appeal at all. RFC 2026, 
>section 6.5.3 is clearly applicable on this point:
>

---

From: JFC Morfin <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 17 Jul 2006 23:38:15 +0200

At 20:52 17/07/2006, Frank Ellermann wrote:
>enforce netiquette" on two mailing lists,

Correct. Not the purpose of RFC 3683.

>not a "human rights" question for the UN.

Correct. But RFC 3935 + the IESG response is.
jfc

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 18 Jul 2006 11:13:13 +0200

Speaking only for myself, I have always read the words
"Further recourse is available..." at the beginning of
section 6.5.3 of RFC 2026 to mean that an appeal to the
ISOC Board can only follow rejection of an appeal by both
the IESG and IAB. Therefore, in my opinion, it is required
for the IESG to consider such grounds for appeal, and to
decide whether to accept or reject them. It is then the
appellant's right to decide whether to take the appeal
further.

     Brian

Pete Resnick wrote:
> addressed in other parts. I am interested in the general conformance of 
> RFC 3683 (as experimented through this case) with the Human Rights. From 
> my experience RFC 3863 PR-actions are in violation of the most 
> elementary rights of the persons."
> 
> - 6.5.1 says that you can appeal a WG decision on the grounds that your 
> view hasn't been heard or it's technically wrong. In that case, 6.5.1 
> says the appeal goes WG-chair->AD->IESG->IAB->end.
> 
> - 6.5.2 says that you can appeal an IESG action on the grounds that it 
> didn't follow the process. In that case, 6.5.2 says the appeal goes 
> IESG-chair->IESG->IAB->end.
> 
> This appeal was (as stated by the appellant) clearly one of type 6.5.3. 
> It (and appeals like it) should therefore be rejected without 
> directly to the ISOC Board of Trustees. (*Do not pass Go. Do not collect 
> $200.*)
> 
> pr

---

From: Pete Resnick <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 18 Jul 2006 08:46:15 -0500

On 7/18/06 at 11:13 AM +0200, Brian E Carpenter wrote:

>Speaking only for myself, I have always read the words "Further 
>recourse is available..." at the beginning of section 6.5.3 of RFC 
>2026 to mean that an appeal to the ISOC Board can only follow 
>rejection of an appeal by both the IESG and IAB.

I simply don't see how it can be read that way, especially if you 
read through 6.5 in its entirely. It probably would have caused less 
confusion if Scott had said "Other than the above, the only grounds 
for appeal are in cases...".

>Therefore, in my opinion, it is required for the IESG to consider 
>such grounds for appeal, and to decide whether to accept or reject 
>them.

I think this is an error, and I urge the IESG and the IAB not to do 
so in the future.

pr

---

From: Thomas Narten <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 19 Jul 2006 09:02:21 -0400

> the IESG and IAB.

I think this is essentially right. That is, it makes no sense to
appeal to ISOC that "the process itself was unfair and has failed to
produce a proper result", if there wasn't first an appeal on actual
substance that didn't result in the appropriate outcome.

But, technically, I would not expect the appeal to the IESG/IAB and
the one to the ISOC to be exactly the same. In the former case, the
appeal is presumably on actual decisions and actions made in WGs, by
the IESG, etc. In the latter case, the argument is much more about the
process itself (and how it failed to "protect the rights of all
parties in a fair and open Internet Standards Process" as indicated in
2026) and is less focussed on the details that led to the original
appeal.

Thomas

---

From: JFC Morfin <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 19 Jul 2006 22:31:33 +0200

This is my understanding.

However this rises a problem in cases like RFC 3683. Because in this 
case (this what the IESG claims) the delay for appealing the RFC 3863 
text is over. This is why I spoke of "RFC 3863 application", the same 
as there is usually a text and a running code. In a "BCP" organising 
the Internet standard process the "running code" can only come 
afterward. This is why I did not appeal against the RFC 3683 but 
against the way it was applied (underlining that possible bias would 
be discussed separately). Being the first one subject to the "RFC 
3863 running code", however the appeal delay against the text is 
over, the appeal delay against the way the running code works had 
just started.

jfc

---

From: "todd glassey" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 20 Jul 2006 10:42:18 -0700

The problem with the Oversight and appeal process is that it is described at
what in audit-speak would be described as a "200,000 foot narrative" and the
actual controls and response processes are undefined. The timeframe and
oversight for any failings of the staff implementing the appeal processes.

Also the 6.5.1 section defines two (2) specific instances of events that are
appealable and it totally neglects tortuous interference by others members
of the WG with another's proposed initiative or the failing or collusion of
the WG chair in those instances. Nor is their any recourse against those
potentially found to be responsible who are part of the IETF and IESG
framework.

Todd Glassey

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Sam Hartman" <[email-masked]>
To: "Pete Resnick" <[email-masked]>
Cc: "Frank Ellermann" <[email-masked]>; <[email-masked]>
Sent: Thursday, July 20, 2006 8:12 AM
Subject: Re: Response to the Appeal by [...]

> >>>>> "Pete" == Pete Resnick <[email-masked]> writes:
>
>     Pete> On 7/18/06 at 11:13 AM +0200, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
>     >> recourse is available..." at the beginning of section 6.5.3 of
>     >> RFC 2026 to mean that an appeal to the ISOC Board can only
>     >> follow rejection of an appeal by both the IESG and IAB.
>
>     Pete> I simply don't see how it can be read that way, especially
>     Pete> if you read through 6.5 in its entirely. It probably would
>     Pete> have caused less confusion if Scott had said "Other than the
>     Pete> above, the only grounds for appeal are in cases...".
>
> Having read 6.5 in its entirety multiple times, I agree with Brian's
> reading not yours.
>
> Brian's reading is also preferable because in cases where the
> unfairness of procedures is sufficiently blatent, the ISOC BOT need
> not get involved.
>
> Finally, Brian's reading means that the ISOC BOT will have both the
> IAB and the IESG's opinions on why the procedures are in fact fair.  I
> think that is useful input for their process.
>
> --sam
>
>

---

From: "todd glassey" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 20 Jul 2006 11:02:23 -0700

OK Sam -
What do you do after the ISOC refuses to hear an appeal? What oversight is
there? Arbitration? Court? This is a serious question since there is no
reason for the ISOC BOT to actually consent to hear any specific appeal and
by the writing of their own Articles of Incorporation or BOT Actions
that I have read... there is no reason or constraining guideline
forcing them to be this.

So essentially what you have here is a block of text that says "My uncle
will mediate disputes here" with no mediation framework, timeframe,
evidentiary submission or review process, or oversight... and more
importantly no agreement from the Uncle to stand in that role - or any
requirements for its actions as such.\

By the way - why would the IETF figure that something it wrote in IPR or
Network or any other WG would be legally binding on ISOC and its BOT???

Todd
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Sam Hartman" <[email-masked]>
To: "Pete Resnick" <[email-masked]>
Cc: "Frank Ellermann" <[email-masked]>; <[email-masked]>
Sent: Thursday, July 20, 2006 8:12 AM
Subject: Re: Response to the Appeal by [...]

>     >> follow rejection of an appeal by both the IESG and IAB.

For which there is no adequately defined process, evidence submission model,
oversight or external recourse defined for either. This is the "Trust me I
wont..." commentary and is silly.

---

From: Pete Resnick <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 20 Jul 2006 13:04:39 -0500

On 7/19/06 at 9:02 AM -0400, Thomas Narten wrote:

>...it makes no sense to appeal to ISOC that "the process itself was 
>unfair and has failed to produce a proper result", if there wasn't 
>first an appeal on actual substance that didn't result in the 
>appropriate outcome.
>
>the IESG, etc. In the latter case, the argument is much more about 
>the process itself (and how it failed to "protect the rights of all 
>parties in a fair and open Internet Standards Process" as indicated 
>in 2026) and is less focussed on the details that led to the 
>original appeal.

On this we might agree (though I think this is something different 
than what Brian and Sam are saying): You can read "Further 
recourse..." to mean that you can't appeal a process on the grounds 
of fairness unless you have been affected by that process. But I 
think we also agree that you don't bring the question of fairness of 
the process to IESG/IAB, but straight to ISOC: The appeal you bring 
to the IESG/IAB is different from the one you bring to ISOC.

>Having read 6.5 in its entirety multiple times, I agree with Brian's 

OK, for the sake of argument let's assume that we read it like you 
and Brian. Let's ask some questions: If I think that the way 
technical choices are made in a WG is unfair, do I bring that to the 
WG chair to adjudicate first? That's what I would do under 6.5.1. Or, 
since it is a procedural question, do I bring it straight to the IESG 
chair as 6.5.2 requires me to do? Do WG process questions (as defined 
in 6.5.1) go to the IESG chair (as defined in 6.5.2)?

I can't figure out how to read the the first paragraph of 6.5.1 
(especially the last sentence) and the first paragraph of 6.5.2 and 
come up with an explanation where the procedures for 6.5.1, 6.5.2 and 
6.5.3 are tied to each other. They are independently run processes. 
And nowhere in the process of 6.5.3 is there mention of bringing it 
to the IESG or IAB.

>unfairness of procedures is sufficiently blatent, the ISOC BOT need 

But it also means that if a particular IESG decides that a BCP 
procedure (something that has ostensibly achieved rough consensus) is 
unfair, they can simply say, "This is unfair, so we're not following 
it" without any community review. That's just nuts. Neither the IESG 
nor the IAB should be in the business of reviewing whether an extant 
BCP procedure is fair. (Of course, before the BCP is published, those 
considerations should occur. But doing so afterwards invites all 
sorts of nonsense.)

>IAB and the IESG's opinions on why the procedures are in fact fair. 
>I think that is useful input for their process.

"The Trustees shall review the situation in a manner of its own 
choosing". They can ask for the opinions of anyone they choose.

pr

---

From: Theodore Tso <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 20 Jul 2006 15:16:09 -0400

> that I have read... there is no reason or constraining guideline

What do you do have the the US Supreme Court refuses to hear an
appeal?  What oversight is there?  You can not force the US Supreme
Court to consent to hear anyu specific appeal, after all.....

At the end of the day, there has to be some court of last appeal; it
can't be turtles all the way down.

							- Ted

---

From: Eliot Lear <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 20 Jul 2006 21:34:07 +0200

todd glassey wrote:
> That requires a policy and approval by the ISOC - this is one of the onerous
> failings of the ISOC as well.... that it let the IETF define its own
> contractual processes and their recourse models.
>
>   
 
The IETF is a community trust, and the ISOC was formed to maintain that
trust.  The IETF let itself be governed by the ISOC on that basis, not
the other way around.

Eliot

---

From: "todd glassey" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 20 Jul 2006 12:32:43 -0700

Ted - I have no problem on there being a defined and solid dispute
resolution process and a cap to it in the IETF - the problem is that the one
that is in place now has so many holes in it and so little oversight that
the abuse that most turn away from runs rampant in the IETF and the one that
is there doesn't work.

The point is that the model that is documented here specifies things that
are not in place and that makes the document 'ineffectual' in a contract
sense.

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Theodore Tso" <[email-masked]>
To: "todd glassey" <[email-masked]>
Cc: "Sam Hartman" <[email-masked]>; "Pete Resnick"
<[email-masked]>; "Frank Ellermann" <[email-masked]>;
<[email-masked]>
Sent: Thursday, July 20, 2006 12:16 PM
Subject: Re: Response to the Appeal by [...]

---

From: Jeffrey Hutzelman <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 20 Jul 2006 18:47:29 -0400

On Thursday, July 20, 2006 01:04:39 PM -0500 Pete Resnick 
<[email-masked]> wrote:

> On this we might agree (though I think this is something different than
> what Brian and Sam are saying): You can read "Further recourse..." to
> mean that you can't appeal a process on the grounds of fairness unless
> you have been affected by that process. But I think we also agree that
> you don't bring the question of fairness of the process to IESG/IAB, but
> straight to ISOC: The appeal you bring to the IESG/IAB is different from
> the one you bring to ISOC.
>
> OK, for the sake of argument let's assume that we read it like you and
> Brian. Let's ask some questions: If I think that the way technical
> choices are made in a WG is unfair, do I bring that to the WG chair to
> adjudicate first? That's what I would do under 6.5.1. Or, since it is a
> procedural question, do I bring it straight to the IESG chair as 6.5.2
> requires me to do? Do WG process questions (as defined in 6.5.1) go to
> the IESG chair (as defined in 6.5.2)?

No, not while they're still "questions".  The section you are reading 
describes the appeals process; it doesn't come into play until there is 
something to appeal _and_ you feel it's worth doing so.  For example, if 
you don't like what's going on in a working group, you can take your issues 
to the chair, or to the responsible AD.  If the problem is that you think 
the chair has made a specific decision in which process was violated and 
which resulted in a bad outcome, you can appeal that.  If the problem is 
that you think the chair is abusing process and that a bad outcome might 
result, you can go to the responsible AD and ask them to tell the chair to 
shape up or be removed.  But that's not part of the appeals process; it's 
management.

> (especially the last sentence) and the first paragraph of 6.5.2 and come
> up with an explanation where the procedures for 6.5.1, 6.5.2 and 6.5.3
> are tied to each other. They are independently run processes. And nowhere
> in the process of 6.5.3 is there mention of bringing it to the IESG or
> IAB.

I think the problem comes from assuming that because 6.5.1 and 6.5.2 are 
clearly separate paths, then 6.5.3 must also be a separate path, rather 
than a follow-on to 6.5.2.  The document is structured rather confusingly, 
but I've always read it Brian's way, too.  And, I don't see any harm in 
having something go through the lower levels first, particularly since the 
usual case is that someone doesn't like a decision, appeals it, and then 
doesn't like the way the appeal was handled.

-- Jeff

---

From: Jeffrey Hutzelman <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 20 Jul 2006 18:36:19 -0400

> Network or any other WG would be legally binding on ISOC and its BOT???

Heh.  "Network" isn't an IETF working group; the phrase "Network Working 
Group" at the top of RFC's is a historical nod to the group that started 
the series.

In this particular case, we expect the appeals process to be binding upon 
ISOC and it's board because it was approved by that board, as all IETF 
process documents must be.

Before you start spouting audit-speak at us and quoting practices which 
were not intended for an organization like the IETF and are not relevant to 
it, you could at least do your homework.

-- Jeffrey T. Hutzelman (N3NHS) <[email-masked]>
   Sr. Research Systems Programmer
   School of Computer Science - Research Computing Facility
   Carnegie Mellon University - Pittsburgh, PA

---

From: JFC Morfin <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 20 Jul 2006 19:21:50 +0200

>think that is useful input for their process.

Pete's reading would be favorable to the PR-defamacted person. He/She 
would not have to suffer the unfairness born from the lacks of the 
RFC 3683 the practice has shown (independntly from any possible IESG 
bias). Todd documented the reasons.

However this is something I cannot fully comment from my own 
experience since my concern is the world's Multilingual Internet 
interoperaberability with the IETF Internationalized Internet. My 
whole "weak to strong" strategy and experimentation is built accordingly.

My real concern is the cost of all this. A serious appeal to ISOC 
would call for a lawyer probably spending one or two months on the 
matter. A serious response from ISOC would probably call for the same 
level of expenses (only studying the case to decide if they take it 
or not), something the IESG could obviously not afford. One has to 
understand that this is not true that ISOC is the last step. The last 
step is an international defamation case against IETF, i.e. ISOC, and 
the initial individual authors, plus compensation for the losses I 
and my organization incurred. I understand Brian is insured, ISOC is 
probably not, Harald and co are probably not.

One single example: there is a mail of Harald Alvestrand explaining 
his IESG F2F lobbying to get his PR-action accepted during an IETF 
meeting. For the defense to have similar rights to the prosecution I 
should have had the same possibility. This obviously favors the 
involved member of the RFC 3774 affinity group or RFC 3935 "leaders".

jfc

PS. BTW several having told me I invented the notion of "affinity 
group", here is the RFC 3774 source:

"2.6.6.  Concentration of Influence in Too Few Hands
Until the last couple of years, successive IETF Nominating Committees 
have chosen to give heavy weighting to continuity of IESG and 
IAB   membership.  Thus, the IETF appeared to have created an 
affinity group system which tended to re-select the same leaders from 
a limited pool of people who had proved competent and committed in the past.
"Members of this affinity group tend to talk more freely to each 
other and former members of the affinity group - this may be because 
the   affinity group has also come to share a cultural outlook which 
matches the dominant cultural ethos of the IETF (North American, 
English speaking).  Newcomers to the organization and others outside 
the affinity group are reluctant to challenge the apparent authority 
of the extended affinity group during debates and consequently 
influence remains concentrated in a relatively small group of people."
"This reluctance may also be exacerbated if participants come from a 
different cultural background than the dominant one.  Such 
participants also tend to find it more difficult to follow the rapid 
and colloquial speaking style of native English speakers, and may 
consequently be effectively excluded from the discussion, even if 
maximum assistance is available by such means as real time Jabber 
logs and extensive text on presentation slides.  Even on mailing 
lists, people from other cultures may be reluctant to be as orthright 
as is often the case in discussions between North Americans; also, a 
person whose first language is not English may be daunted by the 
volume of mail that can occur on some mailing lists and the use of 
colloquialisms or euphemisms may cause misunderstandings if 
correspondents are not aware of the problem."
"2.6.7.  Excessive Reliance on Personal Relationships
"The IETF is an intensely personal and individualistic organization. 
Its fundamental structure is based on individuals as actors, rather 
than countries, organizations, or companies as in most other SDOs."

---

From: "todd glassey" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 21 Jul 2006 05:45:45 -0700

Jeff - thanks for insulting me so on the list - makes it easier to point out
how wrong you are... lets talk about the workflow and constraints of the
appeal process 6.5.1 as modulated by 6.5.4 is what we are talking about.

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Jeffrey Hutzelman" <[email-masked]>
To: "Pete Resnick" <[email-masked]>; "Thomas Narten"
<[email-masked]>; "Sam Hartman" <[email-masked]>
Cc: "Frank Ellermann" <[email-masked]>; <[email-masked]>
Sent: Thursday, July 20, 2006 3:47 PM
Subject: Re: Response to the Appeal by [...]

> than a follow-on to 6.5.2.

Uh no by the current process 6.5.2 happens after the 6.5.1/6.5.4 process is
completed.

>. The document is structured rather confusingly,

You have trouble reading? its very straighforward - its just that the
controls and the processes are broken. Someone objects and they must satisfy
the 6.5.1 complaint process AND they have to do it in the 6.5.4 timeframe
and process contraints.

> doesn't like the way the appeal was handled.

Right, so  6.5.1 is the Internal-WG dispute resolution process and
facilitates dispute resolution in the WG or by the AD's hand. As a process
it is ineffective and incomplete. There are no defined controls, no
timelines except the time-limitation of 6.5.4, no contingency for when two
competing initiatives battle for supremacy as an WG's only-protocol of one
type; or any definition of the deliverables from any steps within the
process, nor is there any oversight in the process wize-guy to prevent
bozo's from wrecking havoc with other's initiatives. And more than anything
no code of conduct for how WG members MUST act in the WG's... Bluntly 6.5.1
is broken since it provides no protection for those that are maligned or
victimized by other members of WG's or the IETF.

My favorite response to technologists who become inflamed at the idea they
may be less than factual is to point my finger at a bunch of Geneticists in
Korea and their 'cloned animal' as just one of any number of instances of
incidents where individuals status as an Academic researcher or employee was
more important than their ethical stance as a Standards Process participant;
and ask why anyone here is any different?

6.5.2 is the next layer up - and pertains to the IESG's review of matters
that the IETF's WG Chairs and AD's could not resolve internally.

But the real problem is 6.5.4 which gives anyone involved in an appeal
administration to decide for themselves without any framework or guidance,
on the appeal. This last piece breaks the whole picture even if 6.5.1 wants
equally brain-dead.

Todd

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 22 Jul 2006 09:02:21 +0200

I'd be interested in any comments on draft-carpenter-ietf-disputes-00.txt
in this context.

    Brian

Pete Resnick wrote:
> are tied to each other. They are independently run processes. And 
> nowhere in the process of 6.5.3 is there mention of bringing it to the 
> IESG or IAB.
> 
> But it also means that if a particular IESG decides that a BCP procedure 
> (something that has ostensibly achieved rough consensus) is unfair, they 
> can simply say, "This is unfair, so we're not following it" without any 
> community review. That's just nuts. Neither the IESG nor the IAB should 
> be in the business of reviewing whether an extant BCP procedure is fair. 
> (Of course, before the BCP is published, those considerations should 
> occur. But doing so afterwards invites all sorts of nonsense.)
>