Complaint to IAB regarding IESG decisions (Daniel J. Bernstein) - 2025-10-24
Response - 2026-01-08

On 2025-10-24, the Internet Architecture Board (IAB) received an appeal from D. J. Bernstein, “Complaint to IAB regarding IESG decisions”, which was supplemented by the appellant on 2025-11-01, 2025-11-27 and 2025-11-28.

Please refer to our previous response to your 2025-10-06 appeal, which addressed transparency, the delegation of dispute resolution to a single AD, and AD intervention. For the concerns related to antitrust matters, please refer to our response to your 2025-05-11 appeal. The IAB has nothing further to add on these complaints.

The IAB notes three additional complaints in this appeal: the first relates to the IESG’s dispute-resolution obligations, the second concerns derivative-rights notices and related moderation actions, and the third pertains to the clarity of process documents.

Regarding the first complaint, concerning dispute-resolution obligations, the IAB has determined that the IESG has processed the appeal in accordance with Section 6.5.4 of RFC 2026. That document grants the ADs and the IESG discretion to define the procedures that they follow when handling appeals. The IAB finds no process violation in the IESG’s exercise of this discretion.

Regarding the second complaint, concerning the derivative notice and BCP 78, the appellant's objections encompass claims related to the IESG’s handling of derivative-rights notices submitted as part of the appeal, as well as objections to the IESG’s Statement on Clarifying Derivative Works Rights, and associated mailing-list moderation actions. With respect to the handling of derivative-rights notices during the appeal, the IAB observes that the IESG acted within the procedural discretion afforded by Section 6.5.4 of RFC 2026. The IAB further observes that the challenge to the IESG’s Statement on Clarifying Derivative Works Rights, and concerns regarding list moderation based on derivative-rights notice, have not followed the appeal chain in RFC 2026 and thus lack an IESG response for the IAB to review.

Regarding the third complaint, concerning the clarity of process documents, the IAB notes that it is customary and accepted practice for Informational RFCs to offer explanatory context clarifying how BCPs are applied in practice. The IAB finds RFC 3710 to be in alignment with BCP 9.

Regarding all three complaints, the IAB declines to take any action and notes that the appeal chain in RFC 2026 must be followed for matters not yet considered by the IESG.

Roman Danyliw recused himself from consideration of this appeal.