IESG Statement on the Conflict Resolution and Appeals Processes

The conflict resolution and appeals process is an essential part of the IETF’s Internet Standards Process. As with all other activities in the IETF, the policies of the Note Well apply to conflict resolution and appeals processes.

Section 6.5 of RFC2026 defines the conflict resolution and appeals processes for Working Group disputes and for decisions made by the IESG. Consistent with the provisions in Appeal Procedures, this statement clarifies the specific procedures of engaging Working Group (WG) Chairs, Area Directors (ADs), and the collective IESG in these processes.

The subsections of Section 6.5 of RFC2026 use different terms (“conflict”, “dispute”, “complaint”, and “appeal”) interchangeably for the same conflict review and appeals processes. For the purposes of this statement, these terms will be collectively referred to as “appeals”.

Scope

Conflict resolutions and appeals processes to the IESG, responsible AD, and WG Chairs have a remit to focus on “disputes … at various stages during the IETF process” per Section 6.5 of RFC2026 related to technical and procedural matters within the standards process.

Any action made by a WG Chair, AD, or the IESG is subject to the conflict resolution and appeals mechanisms set out in Section 6.5 of RFC2026.

To affirm a previous statement, “the IESG further wishes to highlight that the primary aim of the appeals mechanism set out there is to resolve conflicts and move the IETF as a whole towards consensus, and it urges all participants to approach them in that light.”

Out of Scope

The IESG, ADs, and WG Chairs are not in a position to determine the validity of legal claims. Per RFC8711, the IETF community assigned responsibility for legal compliance to the IETF Administration LLC -- the "IETF [Administration] LLC provides the corporate legal home for the IETF" and "is responsible for establishing and enforcing policies to ensure compliance with applicable laws, regulations, and rules".

Concerns about legal compliance must be directed to the IETF Administration LLC using legal@ietf.org. Any submission into the conflict resolution or appeals processes sent to the IESG, AD(s), or WG Chairs containing legal claims is out of scope; the entire submission shall not be processed, and the complainant directed to legal@ietf.org.

Content

Per Section 6.5.4 of RFC2026, “all appeals must include a detailed and specific description of the facts of the dispute” whether they are engaged with WG Chairs, responsible AD(s), or the entire IESG. Appeals should be well-structured, and must clearly state their purpose, including the:

• specific action(s) or decision(s) being appealed;
• grounds upon which the appeal is based; and
• remedy sought by the complainant(s).

Describing these key elements of the appeal in a concise manner expedites the appeals process.

Appeals are expected to contain factual information and reasoned argumentation, and must avoid speculation, conjecture, characterization of intentions, or personal accusation. The appeals process, like all activities in the IETF, are governed by the IETF Guidelines for Conduct and IETF Anti-Harassment Policy.

Appeals to ADs or the IESG that contain text that violates the IETF Guidelines for Conduct and IETF Anti-Harassment Policy will not be processed.

Format and Submission

Appeals are considered contributions to the IETF as described by RFC 5378. Submission of an appeal under the condition that it is not a contribution, such as a claim that the Note Well or other IETF right or condition does not apply, shall not be processed.

Appeals must be written in English.

Appeals must be submitted via email as follows:

• for appeals to the IESG: iesg@ietf.org
• for appeals to AD(s): per the contact information found on the IESG Members page (for an individual AD) or the -ads@ietf.org alias (for all of the ADs in an Area). See the AD email alias listed on the datatracker for the relevant Working Group.
• for appeals to Working Group Chairs: -chairs@ietf.org alias. See the chairs’ email alias listed on the datatracker for the relevant Working Group.
  Complainants are encouraged to “cc” the relevant IETF mailing list(s). However, discussion of the appeals on a mailing list must be consistent with the scope of the list.

Section 6.5.1 of RFC 2026 describes the escalation path for appeals to AD(s). Unless a responsible AD is known to be unavailable to process an appeal, an appeal of a Working Group Chair decision should be sent to the responsible AD of the Working Group. Should the responsible AD be unavailable, the appeal may be sent to another AD(s) (typically of the same area). Complainant(s) may send an appeal to all the AD(s) for an Area, but the Area’s ADs can decide to delegate processing of the appeal to a the responsible AD alone. In such circumstances, the Area co-AD(s) not involved in processing the appeal will not recuse themselves (for reasons of being co-ADs) should the appeal be sent to the IESG.

Appeals to ADs or the IESG must be sent via email as text (i.e.., text, Markdown, inline-HTML). This appeal text may contain URLs to IETF websites (e.g., *.ietf.org and *.rfc-editor.org), IANA websites (e.g., *.iana.org) and external resources explicitly agreed to by the IETF or the Working Group for the activity under appeal (e.g., YouTube, a GitHub project). URLs to non-IETF websites and resources may be included, but they must be informative, providing only background or historical information. It must be possible to process the appeal without reading them. Other attachments will be ignored and not considered as part of the submitted appeal.

These format and submission requirements are imposed for reasons of security, privacy, and archival integrity of the standards process and those involved in it. Appeals accessible only through external links pose risks to those responsible for their processing. Submissions of appeals as text integrate into existing IETF archiving mechanisms such as the Mail Archive and support the IETF workflow or email-based responses. The IESG assesses that these formatting requirements impose no undue burden on complainants.

Appeals to ADs or the IESG that do not conform to the above formatting and submission requirements will not be processed.

Processing and Tracking Appeals

Section 8 of RFC 2026 requires public accessibility of records of the Internet Standards Process. Section 6.5.4 of RFC 2026 states “the individuals or bodies responsible for making the decisions have the discretion to define the specific procedures they will follow in the process of making their decision”. The IESG, individual ADs, or Working Group Chairs are not required to publish the details of their deliberations while processing an appeal unless otherwise specified by their procedures.

Instructions included in appeals to ADs or the IESG that constrain how an appeal must be processed or responded to will be ignored.

Accepted appeals to the IESG are recorded at https://datatracker.ietf.org/group/iesg/appeals/.

For appeal submissions to the IESG that are not processed:

• for content, format or scope issues cited above, the record must show an acknowledgement of reception of the appeal and the reason for which it cannot be processed.
• for reasons of completeness cited above, the record must show an acknowledgement of receipt of the appeal, and a description of the information required to make it complete.

Revised appeals will be accepted until the original deadline prescribed by Section 6.5.4 of RFC2026 (“within two months of the public knowledge of the action or decision to be challenged.”) or up to 14 days after the IESG's response to the appeal, whichever is later. This IESG decision to not process an appeal and associated resubmission instructions will be documented via email to a public mailing list.

If no public mailing list is included in the submission of these appeals to the IESG which are not processed, the IESG will respond as described above with the IETF discussion list in the distribution to create a public record.

A decision by WG chair(s), AD(s), or the IESG not to process an appeal may be appealed per the conflict resolution and appeals processes of Section 6.5 of RFC2026.