Perhaps we don't have the same minutes. The version I see presently at the URL
you just gave now says:

6.3 Approval of text for PR-Action Decision (Brian Carpenter)

The management issue was discussed. The IESG approved an RFC 3683 PR-action
for Dean Anderson. Sam Hartman and Margaret Wasserman voted against this
action, and Alex Zinin abstained.

This is an incomplete vote record on its face. It does not show who voted "No
Objection", or who voted "Discuss". It doesn't even show who voted "Yes". So
there is no way to tell if the IESG rules were followed by Carpenter in tallying
the outcome correctly. If A.D's were not given the usual options for an
evaluation ballot, (as one might suspect from your unusual, ad-hoc procedure)
then the "usual consensus based process" was not followed.

Second, there is no record that Chairman Carpenter and David Kessens properly
recused themselves from the decision and discussion. Ted Hardie might also have
considered recusal because of his employment by Nominum, and its role in the DNS
issues at dispute. Their non-participation _ought_ to reflected in the
(missing) discussion minutes. Were Carpenter and Kessens active participants
in this discussion? Plainly, that's why this discussion is to be made public
and transparent. The ISOC and the IESG are not supposed to be star-chambers.
The IESG has a duty to act reasonably and with care, and an obligation to find
the truth of these allegations brought by Carpenter and Kessens.

Further, the vote record given is not sufficient to comply with RFC 2026 Section
8 which requires a "publicly accessible record", including "complete and
accurate minutes of meetings". No "complete and accurate" minutes of the ballots
or discussions conducted on 1/5/06 and 12/15/05 are publicly available. RFC
3683 explicitly requires IESG discussion. Yet, there are no publicly accessible
records of this required discussion. Indeed, the narrative minutes for these
teleconferences indicate that discussion was NOT minuted. This rather begs the
question of how Carpenter concluded who voted which way if this vote was not
minuted by the scribe, and Carpenter did not follow the usual evaluation
balloting process. Not least is the question of why Carpenter is participating
at all.

Further, RFC 3683 requires the "usual consensus based process" to decide the
issue. The example I submitted is an example of an IESG Evaluation. The
PR-Action is also an IESG Evaluation, and RFC 3683 specifies that the "usual
consensus based process" is to be used. Therefore, the evaluation process is
required. No such evaluation process is documented or recorded. The process
Carpenter created outside of RFC 3683 and outside of RFC 2026 cannot be regarded
as the "usual" process for evaluations. And here also, Carpenter should not be
involved in this process---Carpenter's involvement is unethical. His failure to
recognize ethical conflicts justifies broader questions into his behavior.

Once again, we see a pattern of suppressed evidence in ethically unseemly
situations. There is a pattern of conduct, of improper behavior by Carpenter
and Kessens, alleged in the Appeal and alleged prior to the PR-Action. There
seems to be more evidence of improper behavior and missing evidence of proper
behavior.

Dean Anderson
CEO
Av8 Internet, Inc

On Sat, 1 Apr 2006, Brian E Carpenter wrote:

> We only use that form of ballot for drafts. The minutes are
> quite explicit about the vote.
>
> Brian
>
> Dean Anderson wrote:
> > No vote is recorded in item 6.3.
> >
> > For example:
> >
> > Evaluation for draft-eastlake-ip-mime-10.txt can be found at
> > https://datatracker.ietf.org/public/pidtracker.cgi?command=view_id&dTag=4534&rfc_flag=0
> >
> > Last Call to expire on: 2003-06-06
> >
> > Please return the full line with your position.
> >
> > Yes No-Objection Discuss Abstain
> > Jari Arkko [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ]
> > Ross Callon [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ]
> > Brian Carpenter [ ] [ X ] [ ] [ ]
> > Lisa Dusseault [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ]
> > Lars Eggert [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ]
> > Bill Fenner [ ] [ X ] [ ] [ ]
> > Ted Hardie [ ] [ X ] [ ] [ ]
> > Sam Hartman [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ]
> > Russ Housley [ ] [ X ] [ ] [ ]
> > Cullen Jennings [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ]
> > David Kessens [ ] [ X ] [ ] [ ]
> > Jon Peterson [ ] [ X ] [ ] [ ]
> > Dan Romascanu [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ]
> > Mark Townsley [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ]
> > Magnus Westerlund [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ]
> >
> >
> > Harald Alvestrand [ ] [ X ] [ ] [ ]
> > Steve Bellovin [ ] [ ] [ X ] [ ]
> > Ned Freed [ X ] [ ] [ ] [ ]
> > Allison Mankin [ ] [ X ] [ ] [ ]
> > Margaret Wasserman [ ] [ X ] [ ] [ ]
> > Bert Wijnen [ ] [ X ] [ . ] [ ]
> > Alex Zinin [ ] [ ] [ X ] [ ]
> >
> > "Yes" or "No-Objection" positions from 2/3 of non-recused ADs,
> > with no "Discuss" positions, are needed for approval.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > On Fri, 31 Mar 2006, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
> >
> >
> >>Dean,
> >>
> >>The minutes of January 5, 2006, item 6.3
> >>
> >>https://datatracker.ietf.org/public/view_telechat_minute.cgi?command=view_minute&id=335
> >>
> >> Brian
> >>
> >>Dean Anderson wrote:
> >>
> >>>Where are the voting records for the IESG vote on the PR-Action against Dean
> >>>Anderson?
> >>>
> >>>Dean Anderson
> >>>CEO
> >>>Av8 Internet, Inc
> >>>
> >>
> >>
> >
>
>

--
Av8 Internet Prepared to pay a premium for better service?
www.av8.net faster, more reliable, better service
617 344 9000