Define IAB policy for processing appeals

[tfpauly]

The IESG has posted a statement about how they process appeals:

https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/statement-iesg-statement-on-the-conflict-resolution-and-appeals-processes/

The IAB is discussing a similar statement.

[jlivingood]

IAB Proposes Administrative Changes to the Appeals Process

RFC 2026 Defines the Responsibility for Certain Appelas

The Internet Standards Process (RFC 2026) describes the following role for the IAB within the IETF Appeals process:

Should the complainant not be satisfied with the outcome of an IESG review, an appeal may be lodged to the IAB. The IAB shall then review the situation and attempt to resolve it in a manner of its own choosing and report to the IETF on the outcome of its review.

If circumstances warrant, the IAB may direct that an IESG decision be annulled, and the situation shall then be as it was before the IESG decision was taken. The IAB may also recommend an action to the IESG, or make such other recommendations as it deems fit. The IAB may not, however, pre-empt the role of the IESG by issuing a decision which only the IESG is empowered to make.

The IAB decision is final with respect to the question of whether or not the Internet standards procedures have been followed.

Additional Administrative Details on the IAB Appeals Web Page

The IAB has also added some clarifying statements regarding how these appeals are administered on the IAB Appeals webpage:

In addition:
All appeals must include a detailed and specific description of the facts of the dispute.
All appeals must include a preferred remedy for the dispute.
All appeals must be initiated within two months of the public knowledge of the action or decision to be challenged.

Proposed: Further Administrative Guidelines for IAB Appeals

Recent IAB appeals have been submitted and supplemented in ways that have posed challenges for the IAB. As a result, we believe that adding a few more administrative guidelines for submitting an IAB appeal will be helpful and reduce conflict and confusion. Appeals that do not conform to the formatting and submission requirements will not be processed.

1. Appeals will only be accepted via a (to be created) IAB Appeal Submission Web Page.

2. Appeals must be in text format (i.e.., text, Markdown, inline-HTML).

3. Appeals must be self-contained, meaning they shall spell out all of the details of the appeal without referring to an external document. This does not mean that an appeal may not contain references to documents not contained within the text of the appeal. Thus, the appeal must contain all of the content required by RFC 2026 and the additional IAB appeal administration guidelines, rather than saying something like "I appeal to the IAB, please see all of the reasons why in this blog post at X. ". These format and submission requirements are imposed for reasons of security, privacy, and archival integrity of the standards process and those involved in it. Appeals accessible only through external links pose risks to those responsible for their processing. Submissions of appeals as text integrate into existing IETF archiving mechanisms such as the Mail Archive and support the IETF workflow or email-based responses.

4. Notice of IAB appeals will be sent by the IAB to any relevant IETF Working Groups.

Open Consultation Until 25 January 2026

The IAB is proposing these changes, which shall take effect on 2 February 2026, and seeking community feedback on the changes. This feedback period shall run from 18 December 2025 for just over one month to 25 January 2026.

These proposed changes would only affect new IAB appeals submitted after 2 February 2026.

[jlivingood]

The timing above assumes we vote to approve this in the IAB mtg on 17 December 2025 and have Cindy post the consultation the same day. It should likely go to ietf@ and maybe admin-discuss@. And in IAB statements at https://datatracker.ietf.org/group/iab/statements/

[dhruvdhody]

Lets edit this in the google doc