Subject: [iucg] further to your response

From: JFC Morfin <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 08 Aug 2013 16:04:07 +0200

Dear Russ,

I kept working a little bit
(http://architf.org)
on the consequences of your stern and neutral response to my appeal
regarding RFC 6852
(
http://www.iab.org/appeals/2013-2). One never knows about the
positive/negative impact of something in/on the future, so I have no
comment.

I only have now to complete my clarification endeavor in appealing the
ISOC BoT against the IAB for disregarding its RFC 2850 mission and not
providing guidance on a matter of importance for the Internet community
and the JTC1 (/SC38, NWIP 881 - I suppose, I have not yet a copy of the
US National Body Contribution). This will permit ISOC to formalize its
position and complete the RFC 6852 text as far as the Internet nature and
architecture are concerned in the architectonic debate.

I have looked around and I do not find any formal documentation on the
ISOC appeal process. Could you, or Bob, help me with that
information?

I thank you for this help. I apologize for disrupting your vacation, but
I fear possible reglementary delays constraints and an ill timing with
the ISOC and ICC strategies for the October 21, 2013 HLLM on the directly
related global cyber ethic issues, as my interest is in a positive
clarification and not in negative disruption.

Best regards

jfc morfin

---

From: Russ Housley <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 8 Aug 2013 18:27:35 -0400

JFC:

No one has ever appealed to the ISOC BoT.  I do not think it will help your case to do so.  Rather, as the appeal suggests, I encourage you to start a dialogue with the IESG and the IAB about the next steps with OpenStand.

That said, RFC 2026 says this about appeals to the ISOC Board of Trustees:

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.

Russ

On Aug 8, 2013, at 10:04 AM, JFC Morfin wrote:

> Dear Russ,
> 
> I kept working a little bit (http://architf.org) on the consequences of your stern and neutral response to my appeal regarding RFC 6852 ( http://www.iab.org/appeals/2013-2). One never knows about the positive/negative impact of something in/on the future, so I have no comment.  
> 
> I only have now to complete my clarification endeavor in appealing the ISOC BoT against the IAB for disregarding its RFC 2850 mission and not providing guidance on a matter of importance for the Internet community and the JTC1 (/SC38, NWIP 881 - I suppose, I have not yet a copy of the US National Body Contribution). This will permit ISOC to formalize its position and complete the RFC 6852 text as far as the Internet nature and architecture are concerned in the architectonic debate.
> 
> I have looked around and I do not find any formal documentation on the ISOC appeal process. Could you, or Bob, help me with that information?
> 
> I thank you for this help. I apologize for disrupting your vacation, but I fear possible reglementary delays constraints and an ill timing with the ISOC and ICC strategies for the October 21, 2013 HLLM on the directly related global cyber ethic issues, as my interest is in a positive clarification and not in negative disruption.
> 
> Best regards
> jfc morfin