Re: IAB Response to Appeal from Jefsey Morfin

Harald Tveit Alvestrand <harald@alvestrand.no> Tue, 31 January 2006 23:51 UTC

Received: from localhost.cnri.reston.va.us ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1F45HX-0006jo-1O; Tue, 31 Jan 2006 18:51:31 -0500
Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1F45HS-0006he-Ci; Tue, 31 Jan 2006 18:51:28 -0500
Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id SAA12507; Tue, 31 Jan 2006 18:49:40 -0500 (EST)
Received: from eikenes.alvestrand.no ([158.38.152.233]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1F45SL-000389-BY; Tue, 31 Jan 2006 19:02:42 -0500
Received: from localhost (eikenes.alvestrand.no [127.0.0.1]) by eikenes.alvestrand.no (Postfix) with ESMTP id B02DC2596BA; Wed, 1 Feb 2006 00:49:51 +0100 (CET)
Received: from eikenes.alvestrand.no ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (eikenes.alvestrand.no [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 19177-02; Wed, 1 Feb 2006 00:49:47 +0100 (CET)
Received: from halvestr-w2k02.emea.cisco.com (eikenes.alvestrand.no [127.0.0.1]) by eikenes.alvestrand.no (Postfix) with ESMTP id F0D182596BE; Wed, 1 Feb 2006 00:49:40 +0100 (CET)
Date: Tue, 31 Jan 2006 15:39:33 -0800
From: Harald Tveit Alvestrand <harald@alvestrand.no>
To: Leslie Daigle <leslie@thinkingcat.com>, "Iesg (E-mail)" <iesg@ietf.org>
Message-ID: <6A7FAFC112645012E09FC142@B50854F0A9192E8EC6CDA126>
In-Reply-To: <43DFAC4B.1070309@thinkingcat.com>
References: <43DFAC4B.1070309@thinkingcat.com>
X-Mailer: Mulberry/4.0.3 (Win32)
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new at alvestrand.no
X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: 4b800b1eab964a31702fa68f1ff0e955
Cc: IAB <iab@ietf.org>, ietf@ietf.org
Subject: Re: IAB Response to Appeal from Jefsey Morfin
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <ietf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============1331907872=="
Sender: ietf-bounces@ietf.org
Errors-To: ietf-bounces@ietf.org

IAB,

Thank you for the processing of this request.

However, this mailing list maintainer is now completely uncertain about 
what his marching orders are with regards to continuing to administer the 
ietf-languages list.

The IAB seems to have decided that it's the IESG that has to decide this; 
there is nothing else in the decision of the IAB that is clear to me.

Until the IESG hands me a new decision, I will continue to administer the 
ietf-languages list as if RFC 3683 was appropriate guidance for 
administering it, including upholding the current suspension of posting 
rights for Jefsey Morfin until February 13, 2006.

The alternatives would be to declare that I'm making up the rules on my 
own, or to declare that the list has no rules until the IESG decides; the 
last interpretation is not one I'm willing to run a list under.

(Yes, he's gotten suspended again.)

                    Harald Alvestrand

--On 31. januar 2006 13:28 -0500 Leslie Daigle <leslie@thinkingcat.com> 
wrote:

> 5. IAB Conclusion on the Appeal
>
> The IAB found that the response provided by the IESG in this
> action did not provide sufficient justification to sustain the
> banning of Mr. Morfin from the ietf-languages mailing list. In
> particular, while the IAB agrees with the IESG that no specific
> mailing list process RFCs directly apply in this case, its
> response is not sufficiently clear why RFC 3934 is considered
> applicable "by analogy". Further, it is also unclear from the
> IESG's response what the scope of applicability of RFC 3934 might
> be, or when other process RFCs  might be applied "by
> analogy". Therefore, the IESG's action does not meet the clear
> and public requirement outlined above and the IAB annuls the
> IESG's decision in this appeal and sends the matter back to the
> IESG for resolution.
>
> Since the suspension period has expired, no remedy is
> indicated. However, the IAB recommends that the ambiguities that
> gave rise to this appeal be clarified, as described in the
> following sections.



_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf