<- RFC Index (3701..3800)
RFC 3777
Obsoletes RFC 2727
Obsoleted by RFC 7437
Updated by RFC 5078, RFC 5633, RFC 5680, RFC 6859
[Note that this file is a concatenation of more than one RFC.]
Network Working Group J. Galvin, Ed.
Request for Comments: 3777 eList eXpress LLC
Obsoletes: 2727 June 2004
BCP: 10
Category: Best Current Practice
IAB and IESG Selection, Confirmation, and Recall Process:
Operation of the Nominating and Recall Committees
Status of this Memo
This document specifies an Internet Best Current Practices for the
Internet Community, and requests discussion and suggestions for
improvements. Distribution of this memo is unlimited.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2004).
Abstract
The process by which the members of the IAB and IESG are selected,
confirmed, and recalled is specified. This document is a self-
consistent, organized compilation of the process as it was known at
the time of publication.
Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
2. Definitions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
3. General . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
4. Nominating Committee Selection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
5. Nominating Committee Operation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
6. Dispute Resolution Process . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
7. Member Recall . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
8. Changes From RFC 2727. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
9. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
10. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
11. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
A. Oral Tradition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
B. Nominating Committee Timeline . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
Author's Address . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
Full Copyright Statement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
Galvin Best Current Practice [Page 1]
RFC 3777 IAB and IESG Selection June 2004
1. Introduction
This document is a revision of and supercedes RFC 2727 [2]. It is a
complete specification of the process by which members of the IAB and
IESG are selected, confirmed, and recalled as of the date of its
approval.
The following two assumptions continue to be true of this
specification.
1. The Internet Research Task Force (IRTF) and Internet Research
Steering Group (IRSG) are not a part of the process described
here.
2. The organization (and re-organization) of the IESG is not a part
of the process described here.
The time frames specified here use IETF meetings as a frame of
reference. The time frames assume that the IETF meets three times
per calendar year with approximately equal amounts of time between
them. The meetings are referred to as the First IETF, Second IETF,
or Third IETF as needed.
The next section lists the words and phrases commonly used throughout
this document with their intended meaning.
The majority of this document is divided into four major topics as
follows.
General: This a set of rules and constraints that apply to the
selection and confirmation process as a whole.
Nominating Committee Selection: This is the process by which the
volunteers who will serve on the committee are recognized.
Nominating Committee Operation: This is the set of principles, rules,
and constraints that guide the activities of the nominating
committee, including the confirmation process.
Member Recall: This is the process by which the behavior of a sitting
member of the IESG or IAB may be questioned, perhaps resulting in
the removal of the sitting member.
A final section describes how this document differs from its
predecessor: RFC 2727 [2].
An appendix of useful facts and practices collected from previous
nominating committees is also included.
Galvin Best Current Practice [Page 2]
RFC 3777 IAB and IESG Selection June 2004
2. Definitions
The following words and phrases are commonly used throughout this
document. They are listed here with their intended meaning for the
convenience of the reader.
candidate: A nominee who has been selected to be considered for
confirmation by a confirming body.
confirmed candidate: A candidate that has been reviewed and approved
by a confirming body.
nominating committee term: The term begins when its members are
officially announced, which is expected to be prior to the Third
IETF to ensure it is fully operational at the Third IETF. The
term ends at the Third IETF (not three meetings) after the next
nominating committee's term begins.
nominee: A person who is being or has been considered for one or more
open positions of the IESG or IAB.
sitting member: A person who is currently serving a term of
membership in the IESG, IAB or ISOC Board of Trustees.
3. General
The following set of rules apply to the process as a whole. If
necessary, a paragraph discussing the interpretation of each rule is
included.
1. The completion of the annual process is due within 7 months.
The completion of the annual process is due one month prior to the
Friday of the week before the First IETF. It is expected to begin
at least 8 months prior to the Friday of the week before the First
IETF.
The process officially begins with the announcement of the Chair
of the committee. The process officially ends when all confirmed
candidates have been announced.
The annual process is comprised of three major components as
follows.
1. The selection and organization of the nominating committee
members.
2. The selection of candidates by the nominating committee.
Galvin Best Current Practice [Page 3]
RFC 3777 IAB and IESG Selection June 2004
3. The confirmation of the candidates.
There is an additional month set aside between when the annual
process is expected to end and the term of the new candidates is
to begin. This time may be used during unusual circumstances to
extend the time allocated for any of the components listed above.
2. The principal functions of the nominating committee are to review
each open IESG and IAB position and to either nominate its
incumbent or a superior candidate.
Although there is no term limit for serving in any IESG or IAB
position, the nominating committee may use length of service as
one of its criteria for evaluating an incumbent.
The nominating committee does not select the open positions to be
reviewed; it is instructed as to which positions to review.
The nominating committee will be given the title of the positions
to be reviewed and a brief summary of the desired expertise of the
candidate that is nominated to fill each position.
Incumbents must notify the nominating committee if they wish to be
nominated.
The nominating committee does not confirm its candidates; it
presents its candidates to the appropriate confirming body as
indicated below.
A superior candidate is one who the nominating committee believes
would contribute in such a way as to improve or enhance the body
to which he or she is nominated.
3. One-half of each of the then current IESG and IAB positions is
selected to be reviewed each year.
The intent of this rule to ensure the review of approximately
one-half of each of the IESG and IAB sitting members each year.
It is recognized that circumstances may exist that will require
the nominating committee to review more or less than one-half of
the current positions, e.g., if the IESG or IAB have re-organized
prior to this process and created new positions, if there are an
odd number of current positions, or if a member unexpectedly
resigns.
Galvin Best Current Practice [Page 4]
RFC 3777 IAB and IESG Selection June 2004
4. Confirmed candidates are expected to serve at least a 2 year term.
The intent of this rule is to ensure that members of the IESG and
IAB serve the number of years that best facilitates the review of
one-half of the members each year.
The term of a confirmed candidate selected according to the mid-
term vacancy rules may be less than 2 years, as stated elsewhere
in this document.
It is consistent with this rule for the nominating committee to
choose one or more of the currently open positions to which it may
assign a term of not more than 3 years in order to ensure the
ideal application of this rule in the future.
It is consistent with this rule for the nominating committee to
choose one or more of the currently open positions that share
responsibilities with other positions (both those being reviewed
and those sitting) to which it may assign a term of not more than
3 years to ensure that all such members will not be reviewed at
the same time.
All sitting member terms end during the First IETF meeting
corresponding to the end of the term for which they were
confirmed. All confirmed candidate terms begin during the First
IETF meeting corresponding to the beginning of the term for which
they were confirmed.
For confirmed candidates of the IESG the terms begin no later than
when the currently sitting members' terms end on the last day of
the meeting. A term may begin or end no sooner than the first day
of the meeting and no later than the last day of the meeting as
determined by the mutual agreement of the currently sitting member
and the confirmed candidate. A confirmed candidate's term may
overlap the sitting member's term during the meeting as determined
by their mutual agreement.
For confirmed candidates of the IAB the terms overlap with the
terms of the sitting members for the entire week of the meeting.
For candidates confirmed under the mid-term vacancy rules, the
term begins as soon as possible after the confirmation.
Galvin Best Current Practice [Page 5]
RFC 3777 IAB and IESG Selection June 2004
5. Mid-term vacancies are filled by the same rules as documented here
with four qualifications.
First, when there is only one official nominating committee, the
body with the mid-term vacancy relegates the responsibility to
fill the vacancy to it. If the mid-term vacancy occurs during the
period of time that the term of the prior year's nominating
committee overlaps with the term of the current year's nominating
committee, the body with the mid-term vacancy must relegate the
responsibility to fill the vacancy to the prior year's nominating
committee.
Second, if it is the case that the nominating committee is
reconvening to fill the mid-term vacancy, then the completion of
the candidate selection and confirmation process is due within 6
weeks, with all other time periods otherwise unspecified prorated
accordingly.
Third, the confirming body has two weeks from the day it is
notified of a candidate to reject the candidate, otherwise the
candidate is assumed to have been confirmed.
Fourth, the term of the confirmed candidate will be either:
1. the remainder of the term of the open position if that
remainder is not less than one year.
2. the remainder of the term of the open position plus the next 2
year term if that remainder is less than one year.
In both cases a year is the period of time from a First IETF
meeting to the next First IETF meeting.
6. All deliberations and supporting information that relates to
specific nominees, candidates, and confirmed candidates are
confidential.
The nominating committee and confirming body members will be
exposed to confidential information as a result of their
deliberations, their interactions with those they consult, and
from those who provide requested supporting information. All
members and all other participants are expected to handle this
information in a manner consistent with its sensitivity.
It is consistent with this rule for current nominating committee
members who have served on prior nominating committees to advise
the current committee on deliberations and results of the prior
committee, as necessary and appropriate.
Galvin Best Current Practice [Page 6]
RFC 3777 IAB and IESG Selection June 2004
7. Unless otherwise specified, the advice and consent model is used
throughout the process. This model is characterized as follows.
1. The IETF Executive Director informs the nominating committee of
the IESG and IAB positions to be reviewed.
The IESG and IAB are responsible for providing summary of the
expertise desired of the candidates selected for their
respective open positions to the Executive Director. The
summaries are provided to the nominating committee for its
consideration.
2. The nominating committee selects candidates based on its
understanding of the IETF community's consensus of the
qualifications required and advises each confirming body of its
respective candidates.
3. The confirming bodies review their respective candidates, they
may at their discretion communicate with the nominating
committee, and then consent to some, all, or none of the
candidates.
The sitting IAB members review the IESG candidates.
The Internet Society Board of Trustees reviews the IAB
candidates.
The confirming bodies conduct their review using all
information and any means acceptable to them, including but not
limited to the supporting information provided by the
nominating committee, information known personally to members
of the confirming bodies and shared within the confirming body,
the results of interactions within the confirming bodies, and
the confirming bodies interpretation of what is in the best
interests of the IETF community.
If all of the candidates are confirmed, the job of the
nominating committee with respect to those open positions is
complete.
If some or none of the candidates submitted to a confirming
body are confirmed, the confirming body should communicate with
the nominating committee both to explain the reason why all the
candidates were not confirmed and to understand the nominating
committee's rationale for its candidates.
Galvin Best Current Practice [Page 7]
RFC 3777 IAB and IESG Selection June 2004
The confirming body may reject individual candidates, in which
case the nominating committee must select alternate candidates
for the rejected candidates.
Any additional time required by the nominating committee should
not exceed its maximum time allotment.
4. A confirming body decides whether it confirms each candidate
using a confirmation decision rule chosen by the confirming
body.
If a confirming body has no specific confirmation decision
rule, then confirming a given candidate should require at least
one-half of the confirming body's sitting members to agree to
that confirmation.
The decision may be made by conducting a formal vote, by
asserting consensus based on informal exchanges (e.g., email),
or by any other mechanism that is used to conduct the normal
business of the confirming body.
Regardless of which decision rule the confirming body uses, any
candidate that is not confirmed under that rule is considered
to be rejected.
The confirming body must make its decision within a reasonable
time frame. The results from the confirming body must be
reported promptly to the nominating committee.
8. The following rules apply to nominees candidates who are currently
sitting members of the IESG or IAB, and who are not sitting in an
open position being filled by the nominating committee.
The confirmation of a candidate to an open position does not
automatically create a vacancy in the IESG or IAB position
currently occupied by the candidate. The mid-term vacancy can not
exist until, first, the candidate formally resigns from the
current position and, second, the body with the vacancy formally
decides for itself that it wants the nominating committee to fill
the mid-term vacancy according to the rules for a mid-term vacancy
documented elsewhere in this document.
The resignation should be effective as of when the term of the new
position begins. The resignation may remain confidential to the
IAB, IESG, and nominating committee until the confirmed candidate
is announced for the new position. The process, according to
Galvin Best Current Practice [Page 8]
RFC 3777 IAB and IESG Selection June 2004
rules set out elsewhere in this document, of filling the seat
vacated by the confirmed candidate may begin as soon as the
vacancy is publicly announced.
Filling a mid-term vacancy is a separate and independent action
from the customary action of filling open positions. In
particular, a nominating committee must complete its job with
respect to filling the open positions and then separately proceed
with the task of filling the mid-term vacancy according to the
rules for a mid-term vacancy documented elsewhere in this
document.
However, the following exception is permitted in the case where
the candidate for an open position is currently a sitting member
of the IAB. It is consistent with these rules for the
announcements of a resignation of a sitting member of the IAB and
of the confirmed candidate for the mid-term vacancy created by
that sitting member on the IAB to all occur at the same time as
long as the actual sequence of events that occurred did so in the
following order.
* The nominating committee completes the advice and consent
process for the open position being filled by the candidate
currently sitting on the IAB.
* The newly confirmed candidate resigns from their current
position on the IAB.
* The IAB with the new mid-term vacancy requests that the
nominating committee fill the position.
* The Executive Director of the IETF informs the nominating
committee of the mid-term vacancy.
* The nominating committee acts on the request to fill the mid-
term vacancy.
9. All announcements must be made using at least the mechanism used
by the IETF Secretariat for its announcements, including a notice
on the IETF web site.
As of the publication of this document, the current mechanism is
an email message to both the "ietf" and the "ietf-announce"
mailing lists.
Galvin Best Current Practice [Page 9]
RFC 3777 IAB and IESG Selection June 2004
4. Nominating Committee Selection
The following set of rules apply to the creation of the nominating
committee and the selection of its members.
1. The completion of the process of selecting and organizing the
members of the nominating committee is due within 3 months.
The completion of the selection and organization process is due
at least one month prior to the Third IETF. This ensures the
nominating committee is fully operational and available for
interviews and consultation during the Third IETF.
2. The term of a nominating committee is expected to be 15 months.
It is the intent of this rule that the end of a nominating
committee's term overlap by approximately three months the
beginning of the term of the next nominating committee.
The term of a nominating committee begins when its members are
officially announced. The term ends at the Third IETF (not three
meetings), i.e., the IETF meeting after the next nominating
committee's term begins.
A term is expected to begin at least two months prior to the
Third IETF to ensure the nominating committee has at least one
month to get organized before preparing for the Third IETF.
A nominating committee is expected to complete any work-in-
progress before it is dissolved at the end of its term.
During the period of time that the terms of the nominating
committees overlap, all mid-term vacancies are to be relegated to
the prior year's nominating committee. The prior year's
nominating committee has no other responsibilities during the
overlap period. At all times other than the overlap period there
is exactly one official nominating committee and it is
responsible for all mid-term vacancies.
When the prior year's nominating committee is filling a mid-term
vacancy during the period of time that the terms overlap, the
nominating committees operate independently. However, some
coordination is needed between them. Since the prior year's
Chair is a non-voting advisor to the current nominating committee
the coordination is expected to be straightforward.
3. The nominating committee comprises at least a Chair, 10 voting
volunteers, 3 liaisons, and an advisor.
Galvin Best Current Practice [Page 10]
RFC 3777 IAB and IESG Selection June 2004
Any committee member may propose the addition of an advisor to
participate in some or all of the deliberations of the committee.
The addition must be approved by the committee according to its
established voting mechanism. Advisors participate as
individuals.
Any committee member may propose the addition of a liaison from
other unrepresented organizations to participate in some or all
of the deliberations of the committee. The addition must be
approved by the committee according to its established voting
mechanism. Liaisons participate as representatives of their
respective organizations.
The Chair is selected according to rules stated elsewhere in this
document.
The 10 voting volunteers are selected according to rules stated
elsewhere in this document.
The IESG and IAB liaisons are selected according to rules stated
elsewhere in this document.
The Internet Society Board of Trustees may appoint a liaison to
the nominating committee at its own discretion.
The Chair of last year's nominating committee serves as an
advisor according to rules stated elsewhere in this document.
None of the Chair, liaisons, or advisors vote on the selection of
candidates. They do vote on all other issues before the
committee unless otherwise specified in this document.
4. The Chair of the nominating committee is responsible for ensuring
the nominating committee completes its assigned duties in a
timely fashion and performs in the best interests of the IETF
community.
The Chair must be thoroughly familiar with the rules and guidance
indicated throughout this document. The Chair must ensure the
nominating committee completes its assigned duties in a manner
that is consistent with this document.
The Chair must attest by proclamation at a plenary session of the
First IETF that the results of the committee represent its best
effort and the best interests of the IETF community.
The Chair does not vote on the selection of candidates.
Galvin Best Current Practice [Page 11]
RFC 3777 IAB and IESG Selection June 2004
5. The Internet Society President appoints the Chair, who must meet
the same requirements for membership in the nominating committee
as a voting volunteer.
The nominating committee Chair must agree to invest the time
necessary to ensure that the nominating committee completes its
assigned duties and to perform in the best interests of the IETF
community in that role.
The appointment is due no later than the Second IETF meeting to
ensure it can be announced during a plenary session at that
meeting. The completion of the appointment is necessary to
ensure the annual process can complete at the time specified
elsewhere in this document.
6. A Chair, in consultation with the Internet Society President, may
appoint a temporary substitute for the Chair position.
There are a variety of ordinary circumstances that may arise from
time to time that could result in a Chair being unavailable to
oversee the activities of the committee. The Chair, in
consultation with the Internet Society President, may appoint a
substitute from a pool comprised of the liaisons currently
serving on the committee and the prior year's Chair or designee.
Any such appointment must be temporary and does not absolve the
Chair of any or all responsibility for ensuring the nominating
committee completes its assigned duties in a timely fashion.
7. Liaisons are responsible for ensuring the nominating committee in
general and the Chair in particular execute their assigned duties
in the best interests of the IETF community.
Liaisons are expected to represent the views of their respective
organizations during the deliberations of the committee. They
should provide information as requested or when they believe it
would be helpful to the committee.
Liaisons from the IESG and IAB are expected to provide
information to the nominating committee regarding the operation,
responsibility, and composition of their respective bodies.
Liaisons are expected to convey questions from the committee to
their respective organizations and responses to those questions
to the committee, as requested by the committee.
Liaisons from the IESG, IAB, and Internet Society Board of
Trustees (if one was appointed) are expected to review the
Galvin Best Current Practice [Page 12]
RFC 3777 IAB and IESG Selection June 2004
operation and executing process of the nominating committee and
to report any concerns or issues to the Chair of the nominating
committee immediately. If they can not resolve the issue between
themselves, liaisons must report it according to the dispute
resolution process stated elsewhere in this document.
Liaisons from confirming bodies are expected to assist the
committee in preparing the testimony it is required to provide
with its candidates.
Liaisons may have other nominating committee responsibilities as
required by their respective organizations or requested by the
nominating committee, except that such responsibilities may not
conflict with any other provisions of this document.
Liaisons do not vote on the selection of candidates.
8. The sitting IAB and IESG members each appoint a liaison from
their current membership, someone who is not sitting in an open
position, to serve on the nominating committee.
9. An advisor is responsible for such duties as specified by the
invitation that resulted in the appointment.
Advisors do not vote on the selection of candidates.
10. The Chair of the prior year's nominating committee serves as an
advisor to the current committee.
The prior year's Chair is expected to review the actions and
activities of the current Chair and to report any concerns or
issues to the nominating committee Chair immediately. If they
can not resolve the issue between themselves, the prior year's
Chair must report it according to the dispute resolution process
stated elsewhere in this document.
The prior year's Chair may select a designee from a pool composed
of the voting volunteers of the prior year's committee and all
prior Chairs if the Chair is unavailable. If the prior year's
Chair is unavailable or is unable or unwilling to make such a
designation in a timely fashion, the Chair of the current year's
committee may select a designee in consultation with the Internet
Society President.
Selecting a prior year's committee member as the designee permits
the experience of the prior year's deliberations to be readily
available to the current committee. Selecting an earlier prior
year Chair as the designee permits the experience of being a
Galvin Best Current Practice [Page 13]
RFC 3777 IAB and IESG Selection June 2004
Chair as well as that Chair's committee deliberations to be
readily available to the current committee.
All references to "prior year's Chair" in this document refer to
the person serving in that role, whether it is the actual prior
year's Chair or a designee.
11. Voting volunteers are responsible for completing the tasks of the
nominating committee in a timely fashion.
Each voting volunteer is expected to participate in all
activities of the nominating committee with a level of effort
approximately equal to all other voting volunteers. Specific
tasks to be completed are established and managed by the Chair
according to rules stated elsewhere in this document.
12. The Chair must establish and announce milestones for the
selection of the nominating committee members.
There is a defined time period during which the selection process
is due to be completed. The Chair must establish a set of
milestones which, if met in a timely fashion, will result in the
completion of the process on time.
13. The Chair obtains the list of IESG and IAB positions to be
reviewed and announces it along with a solicitation for names of
volunteers from the IETF community willing to serve on the
nominating committee.
The solicitation must permit the community at least 30 days
during which they may choose to volunteer to be selected for the
nominating committee.
The list of open positions is published with the solicitation to
facilitate community members choosing between volunteering for an
open position and volunteering for the nominating committee.
14. Members of the IETF community must have attended at least 3 of
the last 5 IETF meetings in order to volunteer.
The 5 meetings are the five most recent meetings that ended prior
to the date on which the solicitation for nominating committee
volunteers was submitted for distribution to the IETF community.
The IETF Secretariat is responsible for confirming that
volunteers have met the attendance requirement.
Galvin Best Current Practice [Page 14]
RFC 3777 IAB and IESG Selection June 2004
Volunteers must provide their full name, email address, and
primary company or organization affiliation (if any) when
volunteering.
Volunteers are expected to be familiar with the IETF processes
and procedures, which are readily learned by active participation
in a working group and especially by serving as a document editor
or working group chair.
15. Members of the Internet Society Board of Trustees, sitting
members of the IAB, and sitting members of the IESG may not
volunteer to serve on the nominating committee.
16. The Chair announces both the list of the pool of volunteers from
which the 10 voting volunteers will be randomly selected and the
method with which the selection will be completed.
The announcement should be made at least 1 week prior to the date
on which the random selection will occur.
The pool of volunteers must be enumerated or otherwise indicated
according to the needs of the selection method to be used.
The announcement must specify the data that will be used as input
to the selection method. The method must depend on random data
whose value is not known or available until the date on which the
random selection will occur.
It must be possible to independently verify that the selection
method used is both fair and unbiased. A method is fair if each
eligible volunteer is equally likely to be selected. A method is
unbiased if no one can influence its outcome in favor of a
specific outcome.
It must be possible to repeat the selection method, either
through iteration or by restarting in such a way as to remain
fair and unbiased. This is necessary to replace selected
volunteers should they become unavailable after selection.
The selection method must produce an ordered list of volunteers.
One possible selection method is described in RFC 2777 [1].
17. The Chair randomly selects the 10 voting volunteers from the pool
of names of volunteers and announces the members of the
nominating committee.
Galvin Best Current Practice [Page 15]
RFC 3777 IAB and IESG Selection June 2004
No more than two volunteers with the same primary affiliation may
be selected for the nominating committee. The Chair reviews the
primary affiliation of each volunteer selected by the method in
turn. If the primary affiliation for a volunteer is the same as
two previously selected volunteers, that volunteer is removed
from consideration and the method is repeated to identify the
next eligible volunteer.
There must be at least two announcements of all members of the
nominating committee.
The first announcement should occur as soon after the random
selection as is reasonable for the Chair. The community must
have at least 1 week during which any member may challenge the
results of the random selection.
The challenge must be made in writing (email is acceptable) to
the Chair. The Chair has 48 hours to review the challenge and
offer a resolution to the member. If the resolution is not
accepted by the member, that member may report the challenge
according to the dispute resolution process stated elsewhere in
this document.
If a selected volunteer, upon reading the announcement with the
list of selected volunteers, finds that two or more other
volunteers have the same affiliation, then the volunteer should
notify the Chair who will determine the appropriate action.
During at least the 1 week challenge period the Chair must
contact each of the members and confirm their willingness and
availability to serve. The Chair should make every reasonable
effort to contact each member.
* If the Chair is unable to contact a liaison the problem is
referred to the respective organization to resolve. The Chair
should allow a reasonable amount of time for the organization
to resolve the problem and then may proceed without the
liaison.
* If the Chair is unable to contact an advisor the Chair may
elect to proceed without the advisor, except for the prior
year's Chair for whom the Chair must consult with the Internet
Society President as stated elsewhere in this document.
Galvin Best Current Practice [Page 16]
RFC 3777 IAB and IESG Selection June 2004
* If the Chair is unable to contact a voting volunteer the Chair
must repeat the random selection process in order to replace
the unavailable volunteer. There should be at least 1 day
between the announcement of the iteration and the selection
process.
After at least 1 week and confirming that 10 voting volunteers
are ready to serve, the Chair makes the second announcement of
the members of the nominating committee, which officially begins
the term of the nominating committee.
18. The Chair works with the members of the committee to organize
itself in preparation for completing its assigned duties.
The committee has approximately one month during which it can
self-organize. Its responsibilities during this time include but
are not limited to the following.
* Setting up a regular teleconference schedule.
* Setting up an internal web site.
* Setting up a mailing list for internal discussions.
* Setting up an email address for receiving community input.
* Establishing operational procedures.
* Establishing milestones in order to monitor the progress of
the selection process.
5. Nominating Committee Operation
The following rules apply to the operation of the nominating
committee. If necessary, a paragraph discussing the interpretation
of each rule is included.
The rules are organized approximately in the order in which they
would be invoked.
1. All rules and special circumstances not otherwise specified are
at the discretion of the committee.
Exceptional circumstances will occasionally arise during the
normal operation of the nominating committee. This rule is
intended to foster the continued forward progress of the
committee.
Galvin Best Current Practice [Page 17]
RFC 3777 IAB and IESG Selection June 2004
Any member of the committee may propose a rule for adoption by
the committee. The rule must be approved by the committee
according to its established voting mechanism.
All members of the committee should consider whether the
exception is worthy of mention in the next revision of this
document and follow-up accordingly.
2. The completion of the process of selecting candidates to be
confirmed by their respective confirming body is due within 3
months.
The completion of the selection process is due at least two
month's prior to the First IETF. This ensures the nominating
committee has sufficient time to complete the confirmation
process.
3. The completion of the process of confirming the candidates is due
within 1 month.
The completion of the confirmation process is due at least one
month prior to the First IETF.
4. The Chair must establish for the nominating committee a set of
milestones for the candidate selection and confirmation process.
There is a defined time period during which the candidate
selection and confirmation process must be completed. The Chair
must establish a set of milestones which, if met in a timely
fashion, will result in the completion of the process on time.
The Chair should allow time for iterating the activities of the
committee if one or more candidates is not confirmed.
The Chair should ensure that all committee members are aware of
the milestones.
5. The Chair must establish a voting mechanism.
The committee must be able to objectively determine when a
decision has been made during its deliberations. The criteria
for determining closure must be established and known to all
members of the nominating committee.
6. At least a quorum of committee members must participate in a
vote.
Galvin Best Current Practice [Page 18]
RFC 3777 IAB and IESG Selection June 2004
Only voting volunteers vote on a candidate selection. For a
candidate selection vote a quorum is comprised of at least 7 of
the voting volunteers.
At all other times a quorum is present if at least 75% of the
nominating committee members are participating.
7. Any member of the nominating committee may propose to the
committee that any other member except the Chair be recalled.
The process for recalling the Chair is defined elsewhere in this
document.
There are a variety of ordinary circumstances that may arise that
could result in one or more members of the committee being
unavailable to complete their assigned duties, for example health
concerns, family issues, or a change of priorities at work. A
committee member may choose to resign for unspecified personal
reasons. In addition, the committee may not function well as a
group because a member may be disruptive or otherwise
uncooperative.
Regardless of the circumstances, if individual committee members
can not work out their differences between themselves, the entire
committee may be called upon to discuss and review the
circumstances. If a resolution is not forthcoming a vote may be
conducted. A member may be recalled if at least a quorum of all
committee members agree, including the vote of the member being
recalled.
If a liaison member is recalled the committee must notify the
affected organization and must allow a reasonable amount of time
for a replacement to be identified by the organization before
proceeding.
If an advisor member other than the prior year's Chair is
recalled, the committee may choose to proceed without the
advisor. In the case of the prior year's Chair, the Internet
Society President must be notified and the current Chair must be
allowed a reasonable amount of time to consult with the Internet
Society President to identify a replacement before proceeding.
If a single voting volunteer position on the nominating committee
is vacated, regardless of the circumstances, the committee may
choose to proceed with only 9 voting volunteers at its own
discretion. In all other cases a new voting member must be
selected, and the Chair must repeat the random selection process
including an announcement of the iteration prior to the actual
selection as stated elsewhere in this document.
Galvin Best Current Practice [Page 19]
RFC 3777 IAB and IESG Selection June 2004
A change in the primary affiliation of a voting volunteer during
the term of the nominating committee is not a cause to request
the recall of that volunteer, even if the change would result in
more than two voting volunteers with the same affiliation.
8. Only the prior year's Chair may request the recall of the current
Chair.
It is the responsibility of the prior year's Chair to ensure the
current Chair completes the assigned tasks in a manner consistent
with this document and in the best interests of the IETF
community.
Any member of the committee who has an issue or concern regarding
the Chair should report it to the prior year's Chair immediately.
The prior year's Chair is expected to report it to the Chair
immediately. If they can not resolve the issue between
themselves, the prior year's Chair must report it according to
the dispute resolution process stated elsewhere in this document.
9. All members of the nominating committee may participate in all
deliberations.
The emphasis of this rule is that no member can be explicitly
excluded from any deliberation. However, a member may
individually choose not to participate in a deliberation.
10. The Chair announces the open positions to be reviewed, the
desired expertise provided by the IETF Executive Director, and
the call for nominees.
The call for nominees must include a request for comments
regarding the past performance of incumbents, which will be
considered during the deliberations of the nominating committee.
The call must request that a nomination include a valid, working
email address, a telephone number, or both for the nominee. The
nomination must include the set of skills or expertise the
nominator believes the nominee has that would be desirable.
11. Any member of the IETF community may nominate any member of the
IETF community for any open position, whose eligibility to serve
will be confirmed by the nominating committee.
A self-nomination is permitted.
Nominating committee members are not eligible to be considered
for filling any open position by the nominating committee on
Galvin Best Current Practice [Page 20]
RFC 3777 IAB and IESG Selection June 2004
which they serve. They become ineligible as soon as the term of
the nominating committee on which they serve officially begins.
They remain ineligible for the duration of that nominating
committee's term.
Although each nominating committee's term overlaps with the
following nominating committee's term, nominating committee
members are eligible for nomination by the following committee if
not otherwise disqualified.
Members of the IETF community who were recalled from any IESG or
IAB position during the previous two years are not eligible to be
considered for filling any open position.
12. The nominating committee selects candidates based on its
understanding of the IETF community's consensus of the
qualifications required to fill the open positions.
The intent of this rule is to ensure that the nominating
committee consults with a broad base of the IETF community for
input to its deliberations. In particular, the nominating
committee must determine if the desired expertise for the open
positions matches its understanding of the qualifications desired
by the IETF community.
The consultations are permitted to include names of nominees, if
all parties to the consultation agree to observe the same
confidentiality rules as the nominating committee itself.
A broad base of the community should include the existing members
of the IAB and IESG, especially sitting members who share
responsibilities with open positions, e.g., co-Area Directors,
and working group chairs, especially those in the areas with open
positions.
Only voting volunteer members vote to select candidates.
13. Nominees should be advised that they are being considered and
must consent to their nomination prior to being chosen as
candidates.
Although the nominating committee will make every reasonable
effort to contact and to remain in contact with nominees, any
nominee whose contact information changes during the process and
who wishes to still be considered should inform the nominating
committee of the changes.
Galvin Best Current Practice [Page 21]
RFC 3777 IAB and IESG Selection June 2004
A nominee's consent must be written (email is acceptable) and
must include a commitment to provide the resources necessary to
fill the open position and an assurance that the nominee will
perform the duties of the position for which they are being
considered in the best interests of the IETF community.
Consenting to a nomination must occur prior to a nominee being a
candidate and may occur as soon after the nomination as needed by
the nominating committee.
Consenting to a nomination must not imply the nominee will be a
candidate.
The nominating committee should help nominees provide
justification to their employers.
14. The nominating committee advises the confirming bodies of their
candidates, specifying a single candidate for each open position
and testifying as to how each candidate meets the qualifications
of an open position.
For each candidate, the testimony must include a brief statement
of the qualifications for the position that is being filled,
which may be exactly the expertise that was requested. If the
qualifications differ from the expertise originally requested a
brief statement explaining the difference must be included.
The testimony may include either or both of a brief resume of the
candidate and a brief summary of the deliberations of the
nominating committee.
15. Confirmed candidates must consent to their confirmation and
rejected candidates and nominees must be notified before
confirmed candidates are announced.
It is not necessary to notify and get consent from all confirmed
candidates together.
A nominee may not know they were a candidate. This permits a
candidate to be rejected by a confirming body without the nominee
knowing about the rejection.
Rejected nominees, who consented to their nomination, and
rejected candidates must be notified prior to announcing the
confirmed candidates.
It is not necessary to announce all confirmed candidates
together.
Galvin Best Current Practice [Page 22]
RFC 3777 IAB and IESG Selection June 2004
The nominating committee must ensure that all confirmed
candidates are prepared to serve prior to announcing their
confirmation.
16. The nominating committee should archive the information it has
collected or produced for a period of time not to exceed its
term.
The purpose of the archive is to assist the nominating committee
should it be necessary for it to fill a mid-term vacancy.
The existence of an archive, how it is implemented, and what
information to archive is at the discretion of the committee.
The decision must be approved by a quorum of the voting volunteer
members.
The implementation of the archive should make every reasonable
effort to ensure that the confidentiality of the information it
contains is maintained.
6. Dispute Resolution Process
The dispute resolution process described here is to be used as
indicated elsewhere in this document. Its applicability in other
circumstances is beyond the scope of this document.
The nominating committee operates under a strict rule of
confidentiality. For this reason when process issues arise it is
best to make every reasonable effort to resolve them within the
committee. However, when circumstances do not permit this or no
resolution is forthcoming, the process described here is to be used.
The following rules apply to the process.
1. The results of this process are final and binding. There is no
appeal.
2. The process begins with the submission of a request as described
below to the Internet Society President.
3. As soon as the process begins, the nominating committee may
continue those activities that are unrelated to the issue to be
resolved except that it must not submit any candidates to a
confirming body until the issue is resolved.
4. All parties to the process are subject to the same
confidentiality rules as each member of the nominating committee.
Galvin Best Current Practice [Page 23]
RFC 3777 IAB and IESG Selection June 2004
5. The process should be completed within two weeks.
The process is as follows:
1. The party seeking resolution submits a written request (email is
acceptable) to the Internet Society President detailing the issue
to be resolved.
2. The Internet Society President appoints an arbiter to investigate
and resolve the issue. A self-appointment is permitted.
3. The arbiter investigates the issue making every reasonable effort
to understand both sides of the issue. Since the arbiter is
subject to the same confidentiality obligations as all nominating
committee members, all members are expected to cooperate fully
with the arbiter and to provide all relevant information to the
arbiter for review.
4. After consultation with the two principal parties to the issue,
the arbiter decides on a resolution. Whatever actions are
necessary to execute the resolution are immediately begun and
completed as quickly as possible.
5. The arbiter summarizes the issue, the resolution, and the
rationale for the resolution for the Internet Society President.
6. In consultation with the Internet Society President, the arbiter
prepares a report of the dispute and its resolution. The report
should include all information that in the judgment of the
arbiter does not violate the confidentiality requirements of the
nominating committee.
7. The Chair includes the dispute report when reporting on the
activities of the nominating committee to the IETF community.
7. Member Recall
The following rules apply to the recall process. If necessary, a
paragraph discussing the interpretation of each rule is included.
1. At any time, at least 20 members of the IETF community, who are
qualified to be voting members of a nominating committee, may
request by signed petition (email is acceptable) to the Internet
Society President the recall of any sitting IAB or IESG member.
All individual and collective qualifications of nominating
committee eligibility are applicable, including that no more than
two signatories may have the same primary affiliation.
Galvin Best Current Practice [Page 24]
RFC 3777 IAB and IESG Selection June 2004
Each signature must include a full name, email address, and
primary company or organization affiliation.
The IETF Secretariat is responsible for confirming that each
signatory is qualified to be a voting member of a nominating
committee. A valid petition must be signed by at least 20
qualified signatories.
The petition must include a statement of justification for the
recall and all relevant and appropriate supporting documentation.
The petition and its signatories must be announced to the IETF
community.
2. Internet Society President shall appoint a Recall Committee
Chair.
The Internet Society President must not evaluate the recall
request. It is explicitly the responsibility of the IETF
community to evaluate the behavior of its leaders.
3. The recall committee is created according to the same rules as is
the nominating committee with the qualifications that both the
person being investigated and the parties requesting the recall
must not be a member of the recall committee in any capacity.
4. The recall committee operates according to the same rules as the
nominating committee with the qualification that there is no
confirmation process.
5. The recall committee investigates the circumstances of the
justification for the recall and votes on its findings.
The investigation must include at least both an opportunity for
the member being recalled to present a written statement and
consultation with third parties.
6. A 3/4 majority of the members who vote on the question is
required for a recall.
7. If a sitting member is recalled the open position is to be filled
according to the mid-term vacancy rules.
Galvin Best Current Practice [Page 25]
RFC 3777 IAB and IESG Selection June 2004
8. Changes From RFC 2727
This section describes the substantive changes from RFC 2727, listed
approximately in the order in which they appear in the document.
1. A section with definitions for words and phrases used throughout
the document was inserted.
2. The role of term limits as a selection criterion was clarified.
3. The nominating committee must now be provided with a brief
description of the desirable expertise for each candidate to be
nominated for each position.
4. Because of the overlapping terms of successive nominating
committees, the specific committee responsible for a mid-term
vacancy was specified.
5. The characterization of the advice and consent model was revised
to permit the confirming body to communicate with the nominating
committee during the approval process.
6. A general rule was added to define that all announcements are
made with the usual IETF Secretariat mechanism.
7. Details regarding the expected timeline of the selection and
operation of the committee were made even more explicit. An
Appendix was added that captures all the details for the
convenience of the reader.
8. The term of the nominating committee was extended to
approximately 15 months such that it explicitly overlaps by
approximately 3 months the next year's nominating committee's
term.
9. The terms voting member and non-voting member were replaced by
voting volunteers, liaisons, and advisors. All members vote at
all times except that only voting volunteers vote on a candidate
selection.
10. The responsibilities of the Chair, liaisons, advisors, and voting
volunteers is now explicitly stated.
11. Processes for recalling members of the committee were added.
12. Liaisons and advisors are no longer required to meet the usual
requirements for nominating committee membership.
Galvin Best Current Practice [Page 26]
RFC 3777 IAB and IESG Selection June 2004
13. The Internet Society Board of Trustees may appoint a non-voting
liaison.
14. The eligibility qualifications for the nominating committee were
changed to require attendance at 3 out of 5 of the last five
meetings, to require volunteers to submit identifying contact
information, and to request that volunteers be familiar with IETF
processes and procedures.
15. Some additional clarification was added to the method used to
select volunteers.
16. The process for selecting the 10 voting volunteers had several
clarifications and additional requirements added, including a
challenge process and the requirement to disallow more than two
volunteers with the same primary affiliation.
17. Nominations for open positions should include both contact
information and a description of the skills or expertise the
nominator believes the nominee possesses.
18. Nominees are requested to keep the nominating committee informed
of changes in their contact information. Editorially, the
distinction between a nominee and candidate was emphasized.
19. A description of a testimony to be provided with each candidate
to a confirming body by the nominating committee is specified.
20. The rules regarding the announcement of confirmed candidates were
substantially rewritten to make it easier to understand.
21. The nominating committee is permitted to keep an archive for the
duration of its term of the information it collects and produces
for its own internal use.
22. A dispute resolution process for addressing process concerns was
added.
23. The process for recalling a sitting member of the IAB and IESG
requires at least 20 eligible members of the IETF community to
sign a petition requesting the recall.
24. The section on Security Considerations was expanded.
25. Appendix A, Oral Tradition, has been added.
26. Appendix B, Nominating Committee Timeline, has been added as a
convenience to the reader.
Galvin Best Current Practice [Page 27]
RFC 3777 IAB and IESG Selection June 2004
9. Acknowledgements
There have been a number of people involved with the development of
this document over the years as it has progressed from RFC 2027
through RFC 2282 [3] and RFC 2727 [2] to its current version.
A great deal of credit goes to the first three Nominating Committee
Chairs:
1993 - Jeff Case
1994 - Fred Baker
1995 - John Curran
who had the pleasure of operating without the benefit of a documented
process. It was their fine work and oral tradition that became the
first version of this document.
Of course we can not overlook the bug discovery burden that each of
the Chairs since the first publication have had to endure:
1996 - Guy Almes
1997 - Geoff Huston
1998 - Mike St. Johns
1999 - Donald Eastlake
2000 - Avri Doria
2001 - Bernard Adoba
2002 - Ted T'so
2003 - Phil Roberts
The bulk of the early credit goes to the members of the POISSON
Working Group, previously the POISED Working Group. The prose here
would not be what it is were it not for the attentive and insightful
review of its members. Specific acknowledgement must be extended to
Scott Bradner and John Klensin, who consistently contributed to the
improvement of the first three versions of this document.
Galvin Best Current Practice [Page 28]
RFC 3777 IAB and IESG Selection June 2004
In January 2002, a new working group was formed, the Nominating
Committee Working Group (nomcom), to revise the RFC 2727 version.
This working group was guided by the efforts of a design team whose
members were as follows:
Bernard Adoba
Harald Alvestrand - Chair of the IETF
Leslie Daigle - Chair of the IAB
Avri Doria - Chair of the Working Group
James Galvin - Editor of the Document
Joel Halpern
Thomas Narten
10. Security Considerations
Any selection, confirmation, or recall process necessarily involves
investigation into the qualifications and activities of prospective
candidates. The investigation may reveal confidential or otherwise
private information about candidates to those participating in the
process. Each person who participates in any aspect of the process
must maintain the confidentiality of any and all information not
explicitly identified as suitable for public dissemination.
When the nominating committee decides it is necessary to share
confidential or otherwise private information with others, the
dissemination must be minimal and must include a prior commitment
from all persons consulted to observe the same confidentiality rules
as the nominating committee itself.
11. Informative References
[1] Eastlake, 3rd, D., "Publicly Verifiable Nominations Committee
(Nomcom) Random Selection", RFC 3797, June 2004.
[2] Galvin, J., "IAB and IESG Selection, Confirmation, and Recall
Process: Operation of the Nominating and Recall Committees", BCP
10, RFC 2727, February 2000.
[3] Galvin, J., "IAB and IESG Selection, Confirmation, and Recall
Process: Operation of the Nominating and Recall Committees", BCP
10, RFC 2282, February 1998.
Galvin Best Current Practice [Page 29]
RFC 3777 IAB and IESG Selection June 2004
Appendix A. Oral Tradition
Over the years various nominating committees have learned through
oral tradition passed on by liaisons that there are certain
consistencies in the process and information considered during
deliberations. Some items from that oral tradition are collected
here to facilitate its consideration by future nominating committees.
1. It has been found that experience as an IETF Working Group Chair
or an IRTF Research Group Chair is helpful in giving a nominee
experience of what the job of an Area Director involves. It also
helps a nominating committee judge the technical, people, and
process management skills of the nominee.
2. No person should serve both on the IAB and as an Area Director,
except the IETF Chair whose roles as an IAB member and Area
Director of the General Area are set out elsewhere.
3. The strength of the IAB is found in part in the balance of the
demographics of its members (e.g., national distribution, years
of experience, gender, etc.), the combined skill set of its
members, and the combined sectors (e.g., industry, academia,
etc.) represented by its members.
4. There are no term limits explicitly because the issue of
continuity versus turnover should be evaluated each year
according to the expectations of the IETF community, as it is
understood by each nominating committee.
5. The number of nominating committee members with the same primary
affiliation is limited in order to avoid the appearance of
improper bias in choosing the leadership of the IETF. Rather
than defining precise rules for how to define "affiliation", the
IETF community depends on the honor and integrity of the
participants to make the process work.
Galvin Best Current Practice [Page 30]
RFC 3777 IAB and IESG Selection June 2004
Appendix B. Nominating Committee Timeline
This appendix is included for the convenience of the reader and is
not to be interpreted as the definitive timeline. It is intended to
capture the detail described elsewhere in this document in one place.
Although every effort has been made to ensure the description here is
consistent with the description elsewhere, if there are any conflicts
the definitive rule is the one in the main body of this document.
The only absolute in the timeline rules for the annual process is
that its completion is due by the First IETF of the year after the
nominating committee begins its term. This is supported by the fact
that the confirmed candidate terms begin during the week of the First
IETF.
The overall annual process is designed to be completed in 7 months.
It is expected to start 8 months prior to the First IETF. The 7
months is split between three major components of the process as
follows.
1. First is the selection and organization of the committee members.
Three months are allotted for this process.
2. Second is the selection of the candidates by the nominating
committee. Three months are allotted for this process.
3. Third is the confirmation of the candidates by their respective
confirming bodies. One month is allotted for this process.
The following figure captures the details of the milestones within
each component. For illustrative purposes the figure presumes the
Friday before the First IETF is March 1.
0. BEGIN 8 Months Prior to First IETF (approx. July 1); Internet
Society President appoints the Chair. The appointment must be
done no later than the Second IETF or 8 months prior to the First
IETF, whichever comes first. The Chair must be announced and
recognized during a plenary session of the Second IETF.
1. The Chair establishes and announces milestones to ensure the
timely selection of the nominating committee members.
2. The Chair contacts the IESG, IAB, and Internet Society Board of
Trustees and requests a liaison. The Chair contacts the prior
year's Chair and requests an advisor. The Chair obtains the list
of IESG and IAB open positions and descriptions from the IETF
Executive Director.
Galvin Best Current Practice [Page 31]
RFC 3777 IAB and IESG Selection June 2004
3. The Chair announces the solicitation for voting volunteer members
that must remain open for at least 30 days. The announcement
must be done no later than 7 months and 2 weeks prior to the
First IETF (approx. July 15).
4. After the solicitation closes the Chair announces the pool of
volunteers and the date of the random selection, which must be at
least 1 week in the future. The announcement must be done no
later than 6 months and 2 weeks prior to the First IETF (approx.
August 15).
5. On the appointed day the random selection occurs and the Chair
announces the members of the committee and the 1 week challenge
period. The announcement must be done no later than 6 months and
1 week prior to the First IETF (approx. August 22).
6. During the challenge period the Chair contacts each of the
committee members and confirms their availability to participate.
7. After the challenge period closes the Chair announces the members
of the committee and its term begins. The announcement must be
done no later than 6 months prior to the First IETF (approx.
September 1).
8. The committee has one month during which it is to self-organize
in preparation for completing its assigned duties. This must be
done no later than 5 months prior to the First IETF (approx.
October 1).
9. END the Committee Member Selection Process; BEGIN the Selection
of Candidates; Time is at least 5 months prior to the First IETF
(approx. October 1).
10. The Chair establishes and announces the milestones to ensure the
timely selection of the candidates, including a call for
nominations for the open positions. The announcement must be
done no later than 5 months prior to the First IETF (approx.
October 1).
11. Over the next 3 months the nominating committee collects input
and deliberates. It should plan to conduct interviews and other
consultations during the Third IETF. The committee is due to
complete its candidate selection no later than 2 months prior to
the First IETF (approx. January 1).
12. END the Selection of Candidates; BEGIN the Confirmation of
Candidates; Time is at least 2 months prior to the First IETF
(approx. January 1);
Galvin Best Current Practice [Page 32]
RFC 3777 IAB and IESG Selection June 2004
13. The committee presents its candidates to their respective
confirming bodies. The presentation must be done no later than 2
months prior to the First IETF (approx. January 1).
14. The confirming bodies have 1 month to deliberate and, in
communication with the nominating committee, accept or reject
candidates.
15. The Chair announces the confirmed candidates. The announcement
must be done no later than 1 month prior to the First IETF
(approx. February 1).
Author's Address
James M. Galvin (editor)
eList eXpress LLC
607 Trixsam Road
Sykesville, MD 21784
US
Phone: +1 410-549-4619
Fax: +1 410-795-7978
EMail: galvin+ietf@elistx.com
URI: http://www.elistx.com/
Galvin Best Current Practice [Page 33]
RFC 3777 IAB and IESG Selection June 2004
Full Copyright Statement
Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2004). This document is subject
to the rights, licenses and restrictions contained in BCP 78, and
except as set forth therein, the authors retain all their rights.
This document and the information contained herein are provided on an
"AS IS" basis and THE CONTRIBUTOR, THE ORGANIZATION HE/SHE REPRESENTS
OR IS SPONSORED BY (IF ANY), THE INTERNET SOCIETY AND THE INTERNET
ENGINEERING TASK FORCE DISCLAIM ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED,
INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF THE
INFORMATION HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED
WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.
Intellectual Property
The IETF takes no position regarding the validity or scope of any
Intellectual Property Rights or other rights that might be claimed to
pertain to the implementation or use of the technology described in
this document or the extent to which any license under such rights
might or might not be available; nor does it represent that it has
made any independent effort to identify any such rights. Information
on the procedures with respect to rights in RFC documents can be
found in BCP 78 and BCP 79.
Copies of IPR disclosures made to the IETF Secretariat and any
assurances of licenses to be made available, or the result of an
attempt made to obtain a general license or permission for the use of
such proprietary rights by implementers or users of this
specification can be obtained from the IETF on-line IPR repository at
http://www.ietf.org/ipr.
The IETF invites any interested party to bring to its attention any
copyrights, patents or patent applications, or other proprietary
rights that may cover technology that may be required to implement
this standard. Please address the information to the IETF at ietf-
ipr@ietf.org.
Acknowledgement
Funding for the RFC Editor function is currently provided by the
Internet Society.
Galvin Best Current Practice [Page 34]
=========================================================================
Network Working Group S. Dawkins, Ed.
Request for Comments: 5633 Huawei (USA)
BCP: 10 August 2009
Updates: 3777
Category: Best Current Practice
Nominating Committee Process:
Earlier Announcement of Open Positions and Solicitation of Volunteers
Abstract
This document updates RFC 3777, Section 4, Bullet 13 to allow
announcement of open positions and solicitation of volunteers to be
issued before a Nominating and Recall Committee Chair has been named
by the Internet Society President.
Status of This Memo
This document specifies an Internet Best Current Practices for the
Internet Community, and requests discussion and suggestions for
improvements. Distribution of this memo is unlimited.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2009 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
document authors. All rights reserved.
This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
Provisions Relating to IETF Documents in effect on the date of
publication of this document (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info).
Please review these documents carefully, as they describe your rights
and restrictions with respect to this document.
Table of Contents
1. Introduction ....................................................2
2. Background ......................................................2
3. Discussion ......................................................3
4. Updated Text from RFC 3777 ......................................4
5. Possible Topics for Later Discussion ............................4
6. Security Considerations .........................................5
7. Acknowledgements ................................................5
8. References ......................................................5
8.1. Normative References .......................................5
8.2. Informative References .....................................5
Dawkins Best Current Practice [Page 1]
RFC 5633 NomCom Issues August 2009
1. Introduction
The Internet Engineering Steering Group (IESG), the Internet
Architecture Board (IAB), and the at-large IETF representatives to
the IETF Administrative Oversight Committee (IAOC) are selected by a
"Nominating and Recall Committee" (universally abbreviated as
"NomCom"). [RFC3777] defines how the NomCom is selected and the
processes it follows as it selects candidates for these positions.
This document describes an issue with [RFC3777] that causes an
avoidable delay in the NomCom process and specifies a normative
update to resolve the issue.
2. Background
[RFC3777] is the latest in a series of revisions to the NomCom
process. [RFC3777] has been updated once since 2004, but the update
([RFC5078]) did not change normative text (it replaced a sample
timeline).
[RFC5078] identifies a serial delay in the process described in
[RFC3777], in Section 4 ("Nominating Committee Selection"), Bullet
13, which states:
The Chair obtains the list of IESG and IAB positions to be
reviewed and announces it along with a solicitation for names of
volunteers from the IETF community willing to serve on the
nominating committee.
The solicitation must permit the community at least 30 days during
which they may choose to volunteer to be selected for the
nominating committee.
The list of open positions is published with the solicitation to
facilitate community members choosing between volunteering for an
open position and volunteering for the nominating committee.
The result is that the Incoming NomCom Chair is the only person who
can announce the list of open positions and solicitation for names of
volunteers, a process that requires 30 days for public solicitation.
Since this is the first step in organizing the NomCom, delays in
selecting the Incoming NomCom Chair translate directly into delays in
issuing the solicitation and organizing the NomCom.
This proved problematic in practice in 2008-2009, when Joel Halpern
was named NomCom Chair less than 30 days prior to the second IETF
meeting of the year. If the 30-day solicitation had already taken
Dawkins Best Current Practice [Page 2]
RFC 5633 NomCom Issues August 2009
place, the NomCom could have conducted face-to-face interviews at the
second IETF meeting, but since the required 30-day solicitation
didn't start until Joel was named, Joel was unable to assemble his
NomCom before the second IETF meeting, and the NomCom had to carry
out these interviews using email and conference calls.
It is desirable to allow the solicitation and announcement to take
place in a timely manner so that when an Incoming NomCom Chair is
named, the NomCom Chair can immediately begin executing the NomCom
process.
3. Discussion
This document proposes that four weeks after the first IETF meeting
each year, the Internet Society President will either announce an
Incoming NomCom Chair, or will direct the IETF Executive Director to
issue the announcement of open positions and the solicitation for
names of volunteers on behalf of the Incoming NomCom Chair. This
allows the search for the Incoming NomCom Chair and volunteers to
proceed in parallel.
This process change covers only the announcement of open positions
and solicitation for names of volunteers. This process change does
not allow the NomCom process to move to completion without an
Incoming NomCom Chair; it is only to ensure that the Incoming NomCom
Chair can begin executing the NomCom process without an avoidable
delay and can use face-to-face time at the second IETF meeting
effectively for this purpose.
During discussions in the IETF 74 timeframe, it was suggested that we
also allow the Secretariat to perform other clerical tasks that
aren't called out specifically in the NomCom process but that clearly
do not require NomCom Chair judgment. This document does not provide
guidance about specific clerical tasks that would be appropriate for
the Secretariat to carry out. Instead, either the Incoming NomCom
Chair (if one has been selected) or the Outgoing NomCom Chair (if the
search for an Incoming NomCom Chair is still underway) may request
the Secretariat to perform these tasks, with appropriate notification
to the community.
Dawkins Best Current Practice [Page 3]
RFC 5633 NomCom Issues August 2009
4. Updated Text from RFC 3777
[RFC3777], Section 4 ("Nominating Committee Selection"), Bullet 13,
states:
The Chair obtains the list of IESG and IAB positions to be
reviewed and announces it along with a solicitation for names of
volunteers from the IETF community willing to serve on the
nominating committee.
This text is replaced with the following text:
The Chair (or the IETF Executive Director, if no Chair has been
named four weeks after the first IETF meeting of the year) obtains
the list of positions to be reviewed and announces it along with a
solicitation for names of volunteers from the IETF community
willing to serve on the nominating committee.
If the IETF Executive Director issues the solicitation for
volunteers, the IETF Executive Director must also collect
responses to the solicitation and provide the names of volunteers
to the Incoming NomCom Chair when the Incoming NomCom Chair is
named.
At the Chair's request, the IETF Secretariat may perform other
clerical support tasks, as long as the task being performed does
not require NomCom Chair judgment, in the NomCom Chair's opinion,
and as long as the community is appropriately notified that this
request is being made. This request may come from the Incoming
NomCom Chair (if one has been selected for this NomCom cycle) or
the Outgoing NomCom Chair (if the search for an Incoming NomCom
Chair is still underway).
Note: This text no longer specifies the list of bodies that NomCom
reviews, rather than adding IAOC to the list of bodies in the text,
so that this text need not change further when NomCom
responsibilities change.
5. Possible Topics for Later Discussion
This section contains topics that came up during discussion of this
document but were ruled out of scope, because the goal for this
document was incremental improvement, and these topics were more than
incremental changes. They may be discussed further, or not, but
we're less likely to forget them completely if we write them down.
Dawkins Best Current Practice [Page 4]
RFC 5633 NomCom Issues August 2009
[RFC3777] tightly couples the announcement of open positions and call
for volunteers, and this document didn't try to unravel these two
separate actions. We had a request during discussion to separate
them, so that a NomCom could consider the management structure of the
IETF and the position descriptions that the leadership bodies
provide, before announcing the positions being reviewed.
6. Security Considerations
This specification describes issues with the current IETF Nominating
Committee process [RFC3777] and proposes an update to avoid a serial
delay. No security considerations apply.
7. Acknowledgements
The editor thanks the following folks who have provided useful
observations and guidance on previous versions of this document:
Scott Bradner (who suggested that the IETF Secretariat have this
responsibility), Brian Carpenter, Ralph Droms, Jim Galvin, Joel
Halpern, Danny McPherson, and Pekka Savola.
The editor also thanks the Wednesday evening plenary session
participants during IETF 74 who provided useful feedback on previous
versions of this document [w74plen].
8. References
8.1. Normative References
[RFC3777] Galvin, J., "IAB and IESG Selection, Confirmation, and
Recall Process: Operation of the Nominating and Recall
Committees", BCP 10, RFC 3777, June 2004.
8.2. Informative References
[RFC5078] Dawkins, S., "IAB and IESG Selection, Confirmation, and
Recall Process: Revision of the Nominating and Recall
Committees Timeline", RFC 5078, October 2007.
[w74plen] "IETF 74 Wednesday Evening Plenary Minutes", March 2009.
Author's Address
Spencer Dawkins (editor)
Huawei Technologies (USA)
Phone: +1 214 755 3870
EMail: spencer@wonderhamster.org
Dawkins Best Current Practice [Page 5]