All, Based on this explanation from Scott I withdraw my suggestion. Text can stay as it is.
Eliot On 6/8/12 9:46 PM, Bradner, Scott wrote: > On Jun 7, 2012, at 10:20 PM, Paul Hoffman wrote: > >> On Jun 7, 2012, at 6:13 PM, Bradner, Scott wrote: >> >>> On Jun 7, 2012, at 7:09 PM, Paul Hoffman wrote: >>> >>>> On May 30, 2012, at 11:22 PM, Eliot Lear wrote: >>>> >>>>> • It's probably worth adding a word or two about the fact that the ISOC >>>>> Board is the final appellate avenue in the standardization process. In >>>>> this way it may also make sense to move Section 3.2.1 further back behind >>>>> the IAB. >>>> I have heard that as well, but cannot find it in RFC 2026 or any of the >>>> RFCs that update 2026 (3667 3668 3932 3978 3979 5378 5657 5742 6410). It >>>> should only be in the Tao if we can point to where the rule comes from. >>> >>> see RFC 2026 section 6.5.3 >>> >>> 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. >>> >>> The Trustees' decision upon completion of their review shall be final >>> with respect to all aspects of the dispute. >>> >>> note that the appeal to the ISOC BopT is only if the claim is that the >>> rules are broken >>> not the application of the rules >> Exactly right. What Eliot said, and others have said, is that the ISOC board >> is the "final appellate avenue in the standardization process". That's quite >> different than "the rules are broken". > just to be clear - saying "final appellate avenue in the standardization > process". could be read as meaning > that a appeal of a technical decision could be made to the ISOC Board and > that is not the case - > this is why I used different language > > not sure which you were supporting > > Scott > >>> there has never been such an appeal >> >> Happily noted. >> >> --Paul Hoffman >> > >
