Complaint to IAB regarding non-transparency (Daniel J. Bernstein) - 2025-10-06
Response - 2025-12-12

On 2025-10-06, the Internet Architecture Board (IAB) received an appeal from D. J. Bernstein, “Complaint to IAB regarding non-transparency”, which was subsequently amended by the appellant on 2025-10-16.

The original appeal lists two complaints: the first regarding “that it’s okay for ADs to discuss appeals in secret”, and the second regarding the delegation of the handling of a dispute to a single Area Director (AD). The addendum added a third complaint regarding an AD’s intervention in a Chair’s handling of a complaint.

Regarding the non-public discussion of appeals, we have reviewed the relevant documents, including BCP 9 and RFC 3710. We also note ongoing efforts to improve the clarity of the process documentation, e.g., the PROCON Working Group.

When considered in combination with longstanding practice in this community as well as best practice across similar governance bodies, we find no process violation. We would suggest that if you disagree with this practice, proposing an alternative policy to the General Area (e.g., in GENDISPATCH) is a possible way forward.

Regarding the second complaint (delegation of dispute handling to a single AD), this is again a widely known and supported practice in the community. Nothing in the process requires both (or all) ADs to be actively involved in every step of handling a dispute; this would be a poor use of resources and likely increase delays in handling them. This interpretation does not conflict with the notion that ultimately, responsibility is shared amongst Area Directors.

With respect to the third complaint regarding an AD’s intervention in a Working Group (WG) Chair’s handling of an issue, we have considered documents including (but not limited to) RFC 2418 and RFC 3710, and find no process violation. It is entirely normal and encouraged for Area Directors to intervene when necessary, both to help Chairs in carrying out their duties and to ensure that the process is faithfully executed.

Regarding all three complaints, the IAB declines to direct any further action, and recommends that the IESG consider confirming whether the charter of the PROCON Working Group allows clarification in these areas if necessary.

Roman Danyliw recused himself from consideration of this appeal.