Return-Path: <tony@tndh.net>
Delivered-To: djb@cr.yp.to
Received: (qmail 31095 invoked from network); 26 Feb 2001 20:21:43 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO smtp.tndh.net) (4.33.182.130)
  by muncher.math.uic.edu with SMTP; 26 Feb 2001 20:21:43 -0000
Received: by smtp.tndh.net from localhost
    (router,SLMail V3.2); Mon, 26 Feb 2001 12:20:17 -0800
Received: from eagleswings [4.33.178.101]
 by smtp.tndh.net [4.33.182.130]  (SLmail 3.2.3113) with SMTP
 id 75010CC13EEF4C27B57438D136CB2325
 for <djb@cr.yp.to> plus 2 more; Mon, 26 Feb 2001 12:20:16 -0800
Reply-To: <tony@tndh.net>
From: "Tony Hain" <tony@tndh.net>
To: "D. J. Bernstein" <djb@cr.yp.to>
Cc: <iab@iab.org>, <iesg@ietf.org>
Subject: IAB response to appeal : Bernstein - namedroppers mismanagement
Date: Mon, 26 Feb 2001 12:18:10 -0800
Message-ID: <IEEOIFENFHDKFJFILDAHOEOECBAA.tony@tndh.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Priority: 3 (Normal)
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2911.0)
Importance: Normal
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400
X-SLUIDL: 9627C1AF-47574E55-90EF6899-75FC3CF6

Mr. Bernstein,

The IAB has considered your appeal about the IESG decision on alleged
mismanagement of the namedroppers mail list and does not find any action of
the IESG which requires annulment or correction, or any other action that
would be advisable for the IAB to take with respect to this matter.

As you will note from RFC 2026 section 6.5.2:   ' ... The IAB may not,
however, pre-empt the role of the IESG by issuing a decision which only the
IESG is empowered to make.'

Given that your response on 12/13/2000 claimed our initial interpretation of
the complaint was 'horribly inaccurate', and lacking the requested succinct
statement of issues to be addressed (as well as keeping with the
aforementioned section), the only item left for us to review was the
procedural handling of this case by the IESG.

The IAB reviewed the IESG record, has concluded that you were given ample
opportunity to raise your concerns with the relevant AD's, and that they
were addressed in an appropriate manner. The IAB therefore concludes that
there was no procedural breakdown in the manner of the handling of the
appeal by the IESG.

Tony Hain
   for the IAB