[rfc-i] RESEND: RFC Editor Model Version 5 and revised RSE SOW

Olaf Kolkman olaf at NLnetLabs.nl
Sat Apr 25 04:52:11 PDT 2009


On 25 apr 2009, at 00:32, Jim Schaad wrote:

> Olaf,
>
> I have two concerns that I would like to register with the latest  
> draft.

Thanks Jim,

>
> 1.  In the dispute resolution chain, if one has a conflict between  
> say the
> publishing house and the production center, and a single entity has  
> the
> contract for both the production center and the RSE - Should the RSE
> actually be the final authority on all dispute resolutions?  One  
> assumes
> that there would be no actual appeal for the Publisher in this case  
> as the
> RSE would have been involved in direct negotiations with the  
> production
> center.

I understand your concern.

The dispute resolution as it is written down now puts the decision  
with the RSE and the above case could indeed happen.

However, when disputes happen they are 'registered' with the RSAG (who  
cannot immediately influence _that_ decision, except with advice). The  
registered disputes are reported to the IAB who in their oversight  
role could establish whether there is a pattern of acting in bad faith.

One can probably make different tradeoffs with respect to the power  
balance between the RSE, RSAG, and the IAB. This has been designed to  
put "Executive management" responsibility with the RSE and allows for  
timely decision making while also making sure things do not disappear  
under the rug.



>
> 2.  Appendix A talks about how the selection process would happen  
> "if that
> position is not covered by the RFC Production Center contract"   
> Should the
> community and other entities (such as the ad-hoc committee) be  
> expected to
> have input on the selection of the RFC Production Center in cases  
> where it
> is additionally bidding to become the RSE?

In my understanding,  the RSE is selected by the IAB and the  
Production Center through an IAOC lead RFP. Although the RSE and the  
Production Center may be affiliated with the same organization I think  
the two selection processes are separate. If that needs to be more  
explicit I'd welcome a blob of text (real soon ;-) )


--Olaf

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: PGP.sig
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 235 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
Url : http://mailman.rfc-editor.org/pipermail/rfc-interest/attachments/20090425/0a32a47a/PGP.bin


More information about the rfc-interest mailing list