Dean,

I really don't understand your question. The minutes record who was present and
that the IESG approved the action with named individuals against or abstaining.
I told you that we only use the ballot format for drafts. That means that we don't
use it for management items, so peculiarities like "Discuss" and "No Objection"
don't apply.

Brian

Dean Anderson wrote:
> 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
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>
>