Rather than losing these reasonable thoughts, I stuck them in the
transition team Wiki under IAOC Instructions. They will be remembered.
Thanks, Sam!
--On 27. januar 2005 22:44 -0500 Sam Hartman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I think we are very close here. I can live with Margaret's text with
Sam,
For whatever it is worth, I could not agree more with your
formulation. Although you have stated it better than I have, I
think our conclusions are much the same: trying to formalize all
of this and write into formal text just gets us tied into more
knots and risks edge cases and abuses that
Margaret,
I have two problems with your text:
- It does not handle the issue Mike st. Johns raised - about whether
reviewing bodies would have privilleged access to normally-confidential
information related to the decision being challenged.
- I don't know what it means for the IESG, IAB or ISOC
Sam,
For myself, I agree these things are true. I would like to
believe they are obvious, though I'm not certain of that. For
example, these things are equally true of the IAB and IESG, but it's
not clear to me that everyone understands they can drop a
note to either of those groups.
I don't
Hi Eric,
At 5:40 PM -0800 1/26/05, Eric Rescorla wrote:
With that in mind, I would like to suggest the following principles:
1. The IETF community should have input on the internal rules
set by the IASA and the IASA should be required to respond
to comments by the community on said rules.
2.
I am actually not strongly in favor of principle (6) myself. I
think that the IAB, IESG and ISOC BoT could be trusted to decide
whether overturning a particular (non-binding) decision is
appropriate in a particular situation. But, others seemed to feel
strongly that allowing anyone else to
Margaret Wasserman [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
At 5:40 PM -0800 1/26/05, Eric Rescorla wrote:
With that in mind, I would like to suggest the following principles:
1. The IETF community should have input on the internal rules
set by the IASA and the IASA should be required to respond
to
Hi Eric,
The problem is that best interests of the IETF is a completely
amorophous standard (In my view, chocolate helps people think
better so we need chocolate chip cookies in order to produce
better standards), so I don't seee how this rules out any appeals
at all.
This is a good point, and I
I like this formulation.
A couple of suggested tweaks, inline:
Margaret Wasserman wrote:
Remove the current sections 3.5 and 3.6 and replace them with a new
section 3.5:
3.5 Review and Appeal of IAD and IAOC Decision
The IAOC is directly accountable to the IETF community for the
Hi Leslie,
I like this formulation.
A couple of suggested tweaks, inline:
...and I like your tweaks :-).
They make the text much clearer. Thanks.
Margaret
___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
I am happy with both as well.
thanks
a.
On 27 jan 2005, at 20.30, Margaret Wasserman wrote:
Hi Leslie,
I like this formulation.
A couple of suggested tweaks, inline:
...and I like your tweaks :-).
They make the text much clearer. Thanks.
Margaret
___
I think we are very close here. I can live with Margaret's text with
Leslie's proposed changes. It's actually very close to something I
would be happy with.
I've been rethinking my position since yesterday. I realized that
most of what I want does not require formalism or requires very little
Hi Harald,
On 26 jan 2005, at 02.23, Harald Tveit Alvestrand wrote:
Avri,
--On tirsdag, januar 25, 2005 23:44:09 -0500 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi Leslie,
This formulation is still of the form that does not give the IETF
community a direct voice in the review and appeal mechanisms for the
IAOC.
I
@ietf.org
Subject: Mud. Clear as. Re: Rough consensus? #425 3.5
With apologies for having posted disappeared (ISP other
unexpected connectivity challenges), I'd like to try another
cut at what I was getting at, based on the discussion since.
On Friday, I tried a minimal edit on words
Avri,
I hear what you are saying. I retained the proposed text
for being obliged to respond only when direct by IAB/IESG
because people seemed to want it for rate limiting (i.e.,
preventing DoS). So, we can't just throw it out. We can
change it (entirely), but the empty set option does
not
I don't think I can support your proposed text. I still don't
understand what your proposed section 3.5 does and don't think I could
go along with the plausable readings I'm coming up with for that text.
I don't think your text does a good job of meeting the principles
Margaret tried to outline;
Sam,
Let me first take another stab at recap'ing the discussion that
lead to my proposal for 3.5 and 3.6, and clarifying what I
intend as a distinction between them.
As I understood them, John Klensin, Mike St.Johns, and others
were concerned about creating an IASA that could not or
operate
This set of principles works for me.
a.
On 26 jan 2005, at 20.40, Eric Rescorla wrote:
With that in mind, I would like to suggest the following principles:
1. The IETF community should have input on the internal rules
set by the IASA and the IASA should be required to respond
to comments by
Sam Hartman [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Eric == Eric Rescorla ekr@rtfm.com writes:
Eric bad decisions we have a mechanism for unseating them.
Eric 3. Decisions of the IAOC should be appealable (following the
Eric usual 2026 appeal chain) on the sole grounds that the IASA's
Leslie == Leslie Daigle [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Leslie Sam,
Leslie Let me first take another stab at recap'ing the discussion
Leslie that lead to my proposal for 3.5 and 3.6, and clarifying
Leslie what I intend as a distinction between them.
Leslie As I understood them,
Eric == Eric Rescorla ekr@rtfm.com writes:
Eric bad decisions we have a mechanism for unseating them.
Eric 3. Decisions of the IAOC should be appealable (following the
Eric usual 2026 appeal chain) on the sole grounds that the IASA's
Eric processes were not followed. Those
With apologies for having posted disappeared (ISP other
unexpected connectivity challenges), I'd like to try another
cut at what I was getting at, based on the discussion since.
On Friday, I tried a minimal edit on words that had flown
around the list and seemed to have some consensus. Here's
Hi Leslie,
This formulation is still of the form that does not give the IETF
community a direct voice in the review and appeal mechanisms for the
IAOC.
I, personally see not reason why the IAOC is not directly addressable
by the community and does not have a direct obligation to the IETF
Avri,
--On tirsdag, januar 25, 2005 23:44:09 -0500 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi Leslie,
This formulation is still of the form that does not give the IETF
community a direct voice in the review and appeal mechanisms for the IAOC.
I do not understand what you mean by direct voice. Could you explain?
24 matches
Mail list logo
