Skip to main content

Appeal to the IESG of an IESG decision (JFC Morfin; 2006-02-17) - 2006-02-17
Response - 2006-07-10

* To: Jefsey Morfin
* Subject: Response to the Appeal by JFC Morfin dated 2006-02-17
* From: IESG Secretary 
* Date: Mon, 10 Jul 2006 14:05:15 -0400
* Cc: ietf-announce

Appeal by JFC Morfin dated 2006-02-17

http://www.ietf.org/IESG/APPEALS/morfin-appeal-against-appeal.txt

This is an appeal against the IESG's decision to issue a Last Call
for a PR-action against Mr Morfin on 2006-01-18 at
http://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf/current/msg40011.html

The IESG decided not to consider this appeal until after deciding
the PR-action, and then not to do so until Mr Morfin's expected
appeal against the PR-action.

  1. The appeal asserts that RFC 3683 (BCP 83) is illegal, and
    specifically in conflict with certain provisions of the
    Universal Declaration of Human Rights. In particular it cites
    Article 10 (right to public hearing), 11 (presumption
    of innocence), 12 (privacy and reputation), 19 (freedom
    of expression) and 2 (non-discrimination).

Firstly, any appeal against the approval of RFC 3683 was due
within two months of that approval, i.e. by February 17, 2004.

Secondly, the IESG believes that the Universal Declaration of
Human Rights does not apply to the IETF's internal rules.
IETF participants are assumed to be aware of IETF process rules
before choosing to participate, and their participation is voluntary.

This part of the appeal is therefore rejected.

  1. The appeal asserts that a PR-action can be a DoS against the IESG
    and the participant concerned. Mr Morfin feels he is being used
    "as a fireship" against the IESG. The PR-action has triggered
    disruptive threads on the IETF list "since October." [Factual
    interpolation - this presumably refers to the discussion
    launched by Harald Alvestrand, since the IESG's Last Call
    took place in January.] It asserts that rather than disrupting
    discussions "I submit that I actually drove the
    consensus process (against me in most of the cases)." It asserts
    "I have the distinctive feeling that the PR-action is actually
    to protect the ietf-languages at alvestrand.no from being disbanded in
    application of the RFC 3066 Bis."

The IESG believes this is irrelevant to whether the IESG acted correctly
in this case. Also, one should not confuse the email generated by the
PR-action Last Call (which was not a large fraction of IESG email
during the Last Call) with prior email in the community. The amount of
email generated by the Last Call really does not amount to
a DOS attack.

  1. The appeal asserts certain discrepancies:

3.1. The Last Call does not quote Harald Alvestrand's request.

The IESG finds this irrelevant. The Last Call contained specific
pointers to the alleged disruptive behavior. It did not depend on
Harald Alvestrand's request.

3.2. No serious investigation on the allegations of that request has
been carried out.

This was unnecessary for the reason just given. The Last Call
stood alone.

3.3. The rationale of PR-action is not what I did, but actions
undertaken against me by others.

This is factually incorrect: again, the Last Call contained
specific pointers to the alleged disruptive behavior.

3.4. Prior posting suspensions from both LTRU (a WG list) and
ietf-languages (a non-WG list) are cited.

They are both IETF related lists. RFC 3683 is not specific
to WG mailing lists.

3.5. ietf-languages at alvestrand.no is not clearly an IETF list.

This is factually incorrect; it is functionally equivalent
to the list mentioned in RFC 3066.

In conclusion the IESG finds no defect in its decision to issue a
Last Call for a PR-action against Mr Morfin on 2006-01-18,
and rejects this appeal.