Re: IANA document

[Paul Hoffman / VPNC <paul.hoffman@xxxxxxxx>]

At 2:42 PM -0800 2/3/04, Scott G. Kelly wrote:
> I guess I'm concerned about two eventualities: (1) the expert, 
> perhaps for personal reasons, treats one person's request 
> differently than another's, or (2) the expert, perhaps due to a 
> personal opinion, refuses to allow something that other "experts" 
> view as a good idea.

Both are very valid concerns.

>  Do you think there are adequate contingencies in place to prevent 
> either of these?

Yes. If the expert does one of the above in a public fashion, people 
will complain to the IESG and the IESG will either replace the 
expert, decide they agree with the expert's personal reasons, or 
decide they don't care. That's why making public all requests that go 
to the expert and all responses they make to IANA is a Good Thing.

> Of course, we all believe that if we were the designated expert, 
> such a thing would never occur.

I don't believe that for a moment. If you were the expert, given your 
record here on the mailing list, I could imagine some personal 
reasons for you to reject things. (That "you" is any "you" on this 
mailing list, including me, of course.)

>  But we are all human, so maybe it could at that. I guess that so 
> long as there is some sort of reliable appeal process for such 
> cases, that addresses my concern to some extent.

I wouldn't say that complaining to the IESG is "reliable", but it is 
certainly available. Further, this mailing list will still exist 
after the WG shuts down, and complaints sent to the IESG and Cc'd on 
this mailing list would certainly get the attention of those who feel 
similarly aggrieved.

--Paul Hoffman, Director
--VPN Consortium