IAB Response to Mailing List Management Appeal RESPONSE TO APPEAL TO IAB BY MR D J BERNSTEIN
[Sent February 26, 2001]
This is the IAB’s response to an appeal against IESG action lodged on Nov. 15, 2000.
Mr. Bernstein has voiced complaints about management of the namedroppers mailing list in the past, dating back to at least December 1998. At that time the IESG discussed the issues being raised concerning the moderation of the namedroppers mailing list. That discussion reaffirmed previous IESG discussions that moderation of WG mailing list was a useful and appropriate tool in limited circumstances and that moderation of namedroppers was appropriate. Problems with moderation can be dealt with through normal IETF processes.
The IAB is not a court of law; in fact it has a very narrow scope of possible action under RFC 2026 (either annul an IESG decision and send the matter back to them, or simply make a recommendation to the IESG). In addition to that the IAB has the option of making suggestions about the IETF standards process.
Two IAB members recused themselves from decision-taking on this appeal: Fred Baker (IESG Chair), and Brian Carpenter (Chair of the ISOC Board).
The IAB received an initial complaint on Feb. 2, 2000, and Mr. Bernstein was informed the IAB was unable to act prior to an IESG decision. The IAB received a subsequent complaint on Nov. 15, 2000 pointing to a web page detailing the allegations of list mismanagement and his interpretation of the IESG response. The IAB sent a response to Mr. Bernstein on Dec. 13, 2000 requesting confirmation on our interpretation of his complaint, or a succinct statement if we misunderstood. The same day, Mr. Bernstein responded that our interpretation was inaccurate, and again redirected us to the web page. The IAB received the IESG records of the case on Jan. 15, 2001. Discussions were held over email and on the Feb. 12 teleconference.
Not being a court of law, the IAB has not responded to the appeal point by point in detail, nor has it examined the working group record in exhaustive detail. However we checked the record of relevant IESG discussions.
COMMENTS ON MAJOR CLAIMS
As noted earlier, the IAB was not given a succinct list of issues by Mr. Bernstein therefore was left to address the issue of the appropriateness of the IESG handling of the original complaint. After reviewing the IESG record, the IAB has concluded that Mr. Bernstein was given ample opportunity to raise concerns with the relevant AD’s, and that they were addressed in an appropriate manner. The IAB therefore concludes that there was no procedural breakdown in the manner of the handling of the appeal by the IESG, and does not find any action of the IESG which requires annulment or correction, or any other action that would be advisable for the IAB to take with respect to this matter.