doc: Add RFC documents

1 files changed, 787 insertions, 0 deletions

diff --git a/doc/rfc/rfc2282.txt b/doc/rfc/rfc2282.txt
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..6e67345
--- /dev/null
+++ b/doc/rfc/rfc2282.txt
@@ -0,0 +1,787 @@
+
+
+
+
+
+
+Network Working Group                                           J. Galvin
+Request for Comments: 2282                              eList eXpress LLC
+BCP: 10                                                     February 1998
+Obsoletes: 2027
+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 (1998).  All Rights Reserved.
+
+Abstract
+
+   The process by which the members of the IAB and IESG are selected,
+   confirmed, and recalled is specified.  The evolution of the process
+   has relied principally on oral tradition as a means by which the
+   lessons learned could be passed on to successive committees.  This
+   document is a self-consistent, organized compilation of the process
+   as it is known today.
+
+Table of Contents
+
+   1 Introduction .................................................    1
+   2 General ......................................................    2
+   3 Nominating Committee Selection ...............................    6
+   4 Nominating Committee Operation ...............................    7
+   5 Member Recall ................................................   11
+   6 Changes From RFC2027 .........................................   12
+   7 Security Considerations ......................................   13
+   8 Editor's Address .............................................   13
+   9 Full Copyright Statement .....................................   14
+
+1.  Introduction
+
+   This document supercedes RFC2027, the first complete specification of
+   the process by which members of the IAB and IESG are selected,
+   confirmed, and recalled.  Prior to that time, a single paragraph in
+   RFC1602 is the extent to which the process had been formally
+   recorded.
+
+
+
+Galvin                   Best Current Practice                  [Page 1]
+
+RFC 2282                 IAB and IESG Selection            February 1998
+
+
+   This revision is based on the experience of the 1996 Nominating
+   Committee, the first committee to operate according to RFC2027.  The
+   following two assumptions of that specification are also true for
+   this revision.
+
+    (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 at least once
+   per year with that meeting occurring during the North American Spring
+   time, i.e., the IETF meets at least on or about March of each year.
+
+   The remainder 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 volunteers from the IETF community
+        are recognized to serve on the committee that nominates
+        candidates to serve on the IESG and IAB.
+
+   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: RFC2027.
+
+2.  General
+
+   The following set of rules apply to the selection and confirmation
+   process as a whole.  If necessary, a paragraph discussing the
+   interpretation of each rule is included.
+
+
+
+
+Galvin                   Best Current Practice                  [Page 2]
+
+RFC 2282                 IAB and IESG Selection            February 1998
+
+
+    (1)   The principal functions of the nominating committee are to
+          review the open IESG and IAB positions and to either nominate
+          its incumbent or recruit a superior candidate.
+
+        The nominating committee does not select the open positions to
+        be reviewed; it is instructed as to which positions to review.
+
+        At a minimum, the nominating committee will be given the title
+        of the position to be reviewed.  The nominating committee may be
+        given a desirable set of qualifications for the candidate
+        nominated to fill each position.
+
+        Incumbents must notify the nominating committee if they do not
+        wish to be nominated.
+
+        The nominating committee does not confirm its candidates; it
+        presents its candidates to the appropriate confirming body as
+        indicated below.
+
+    (2)   The annual selection and confirmation process is expected to
+          be completed within 3 months.
+
+        The annual selection and confirmation process is expected to be
+        completed one month prior to the friday of the week before the
+        Spring IETF.  It is expected to begin 4 months prior to the
+        friday of the week before the Spring IETF.
+
+    (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 sitting IESG and IAB 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, or if
+        there are an odd number current positions.
+
+    (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.
+
+        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 greater than 2 years in order to ensure the
+
+
+
+Galvin                   Best Current Practice                  [Page 3]
+
+RFC 2282                 IAB and IESG Selection            February 1998
+
+
+        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 greater than 2
+        years to ensure that all such members will not be reviewed at
+        the same time.
+
+        All member terms begin and end during the Spring IETF meeting
+        corresponding to the end of the term for which they were
+        confirmed.  Normally, the confirmed candidate's term begins when
+        the currently sitting member's term ends on the last day of the
+        meeting.  A term may begin or end no sooner than the first day
+        of the meeeting as determined by the mutual agreement of the
+        currently sitting member and the confirmed candidate.
+
+    (5)   Mid-term vacancies are filled by the same rules as documented
+          here with four qualifications.  First, the most recently
+          constituted nominating committee is reconvened to nominate a
+          candidate to fill the vacancy.  Second, the selection and
+          confirmation process is expected to be completed within 1
+          month, 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:
+
+   a.   the remainder of the term of the open position if that remainder
+        is not less than one year.
+
+   b.   the remainder of the term of the open position plus the next 2
+        year term if that remainder is less than one year.
+
+    (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.
+
+
+
+
+
+
+Galvin                   Best Current Practice                  [Page 4]
+
+RFC 2282                 IAB and IESG Selection            February 1998
+
+
+    (7)   Unless otherwise specified, the advise and consent model is
+          used throughout the process.  This model is characterized as
+          follows.
+
+   a.   The IETF Executive Director advises the nominating committee of
+        the IESG and IAB positions to be reviewed.
+
+   b.   The nominating committee selects candidates and advises the
+        confirming bodies of them.
+
+   c.   The sitting IAB members review the IESG candidates, consenting
+        to some, all, or none.
+
+        If all of the candidates are confirmed, the job of the
+        nominating committee with respect to reviewing the open IESG
+        positions is considered complete.  If some or none of the
+        candidates are confirmed, the nominating committee must
+        reconvene to select alternate candidates for the rejected
+        candidates.  Any additional time required by the nominating
+        committee should not exceed its maximum time allotment.
+
+   d.   The Internet Society Board of Trustees reviews the IAB
+        candidates, consenting to some, all, or none.
+
+        If all of the candidates are confirmed, the job of the
+        nominating committee with respect to reviewing the open IAB
+        positions is considered complete.  If some or none of the
+        candidates are confirmed, the nominating committee must
+        reconvene to select alternate candidates for the rejected
+        candidates.  Any additional time required by the nominating
+        committee should not exceed its maximum time allotment.
+
+   e.   The confirming bodies decide their consent according to a
+        mechanism of their own choosing, which must ensure that at least
+        one-half of the sitting members agree with the decision.
+
+        At least one-half of the sitting members of the confirming
+        bodies must agree to either confirm or reject each individual
+        nominee.  The agreement must be decided within a reasonable
+        timeframe.  The agreement may be decided by conducting a formal
+        vote, by asserting consensus based on informal exchanges
+        (email), or by whatever mechanism is used to conduct the normal
+        business of the confirming body.
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+Galvin                   Best Current Practice                  [Page 5]
+
+RFC 2282                 IAB and IESG Selection            February 1998
+
+
+   3.  Nominating Committee Selection
+
+   The following set of rules apply to the creation of the nominating
+   committee and the selection of its members.
+
+    (1)   The committee is comprised of at least a non-voting Chair, 10
+          voting volunteers, and 3 non-voting liaisons.
+
+        A Chair is permitted to invite additional non-voting advisors to
+        participate in some or all of the deliberations of the
+        committee.
+
+    (2)   The Internet Society President appoints the non-voting Chair,
+          who must meet the usual requirements for membership in the
+          nominating committee.
+
+        The nominating committee Chair must agree to invest the time
+        necessary to complete the duties of the nominating committee and
+        to perform in the best interests of the IETF community during
+        the performance of those duties.
+
+    (3)   The Chair obtains the list of IESG and IAB positions to be
+          reviewed and publishes it along with a solicitation for names
+          of volunteers from the IETF community willing to serve on 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 list and solicitation must be publicized using at least the
+        same mechanism used by the IETF secretariat for its
+        announcements.
+
+    (4)   Members of the IETF community must have attended at least 2 of
+          the last 3 IETF meetings in order to volunteer.
+
+    (5)   Internet Society Board of Trustees, sitting members of the
+          IAB, and sitting members of the IESG may not volunteer.
+
+    (6)   The Chair announces the pool of volunteers from which the 10
+          voting volunteers will be randomly selected.
+
+        The announcement must be made using at least the same mechanism
+        used by the IETF secretariat for its announcements.
+
+
+
+
+
+
+Galvin                   Best Current Practice                  [Page 6]
+
+RFC 2282                 IAB and IESG Selection            February 1998
+
+
+    (7)   The Chair randomly selects the 10 voting voluteers from the
+          pool of names of volunteers using a method that can be
+          independently verified to be unbiased and fair.
+
+        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.
+
+        The method must include an announcement of an enumerated list of
+        the pool of names together with the specific algorithm for how
+        names will be chosen from the list.  The output of the selection
+        algorithm must depend on random data whose value is not known at
+        the time the list and algorithm are announced.
+
+        One possible method is to compute the MD5 hash of future winning
+        lottery numbers and use the result to select names from the
+        list.
+
+        All announcements must be made using at least the mechanism used
+        by the IETF secretariat for its announcements.
+
+    (8)   The sitting IAB and IESG members each appoint a non-voting
+          liaison to the nominating committee from their current
+          membership who are not sitting in an open position.
+
+    (9)   The Chair of the prior year's nominating committee serves as a
+          non-voting liaison.
+
+        The prior year's Chair may designate an alternate voting member
+        from the prior year's committee if the Chair is unavailable.  If
+        the prior year's Chair is unavailable and is unable or unwilling
+        to make such a designation in a timely fashion, the Chair of the
+        current committee may do so.
+
+    (10)  The Chair may solicit additional non-voting liaisons from
+          other organizations, who must meet the usual requirements for
+          membership in the nominating committee.
+
+4.  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.
+
+
+
+
+
+Galvin                   Best Current Practice                  [Page 7]
+
+RFC 2282                 IAB and IESG Selection            February 1998
+
+
+   The term nominee refers to an individual under consideration by the
+   nominating committee.  The term candidate refers to a nominee that
+   has been selected by the nominating committee to be considered for
+   confirmation by a confirming body.  A confirmed candidate is a
+   candidate that has been reviewed and approved by a confirming body.
+
+    (1)   All rules and special circumstances not otherwise specified
+          are at the discretion of the Chair.
+
+        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.  All members of the committee should consider whether
+        the exception is worthy of mention in the next revision of this
+        document and followup accordingly.
+
+    (2)   The Chair must establish and publicize milestones, which must
+          include at least a call for nominations.
+
+        There is a defined time period during which the 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 milestones must be publicized using at least the same
+        mechanism used by the IETF secretariat for its announcements.
+
+    (3)   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.
+
+    (4)   At least a quorum of committee members must participate in a
+          vote.  A quorum is comprised of at least 7 voting members.
+
+    (5)   The Chair may establish a process by which a member of the
+          nominating committee may be recalled.
+
+        The process, if established, must be agreed to by a 3/4 majority
+        of the members of the nominating committee, including the non-
+        voting members since they would be subject to the same process.
+
+    (6)   All members of the nominating committee may participate in all
+          deliberations.
+
+
+
+Galvin                   Best Current Practice                  [Page 8]
+
+RFC 2282                 IAB and IESG Selection            February 1998
+
+
+        The emphasis of this rule is that no member, whether voting or
+        non-voting, can be explicitly excluded from any deliberation.
+        However, a member may individually choose not to participate in
+        a deliberation.
+
+    (7)   The Chair announces the open positions to be reviewed 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 announcements must be publicized using at least the same
+        mechanism used by the IETF secretariat for its announcements.
+
+    (8)   Any member of the IETF community may nominate any member of
+          the IETF community for any open position.
+
+        A self-nomination is permitted.
+
+    (9)   Nominating committee members must not be nominees.
+
+        To be a nominee is to enter the process of being selected as a
+        candidate and confirmed.  Nominating committee members are not
+        eligible to be considered for filling any open position.
+
+    (10)  Members of the IETF community who were recalled from any IESG
+          or IAB position during the previous two years must not be
+          nominees.
+
+    (11)  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.
+
+        The consultations are permitted to include a slate of nominees,
+        if all parties to the consultation agree to observe customary
+        and reasonable rules of confidentiality.
+
+        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.
+
+
+
+
+
+Galvin                   Best Current Practice                  [Page 9]
+
+RFC 2282                 IAB and IESG Selection            February 1998
+
+
+    (12)  Nominees should be advised that they are being considered and
+          must consent to their nomination prior to being confirmed.
+
+        The nominating committee should help nominees provide
+        justification to their employers.
+
+        A nominee's consent must be written (email is acceptable) and
+        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.
+
+    (13)  The nominating committee advises the confirming bodies of
+          their candidates, specifying a single candidate for each open
+          position and a testament as to how each candidate meets the
+          qualifications of an open position.
+
+        The testament may include a brief resume of the candidate and a
+        summary of the deliberations of the nominating committee.
+
+    (14)  With respect to any action to be taken in the context of
+          notifying and announcing confirmed candidates, and notifying
+          rejected nominees and candidates, the action must be valid
+          according to all of the rules specified below prior to its
+          execution.
+
+   a.   Up until a candidate is confirmed, the identity of the candidate
+        must be kept confidential.
+
+   b.   The identity of all nominees must be kept confidential (except
+        that the nominee may publicize their intentions).
+
+   c.   Rejected nominees may be notified as soon as they are rejected.
+
+   d.   Rejected candidates may be notified as soon as they are
+        rejected.
+
+   e.   Rejected nominees and candidates must be notified prior to
+        announcing confirmed candidates.
+
+   f.   Confirmed candidates may be notified and announced as soon as
+        they are confirmed.
+
+        It is consistent with these rules for a nominee to never know if
+        they were a candidate or not.
+
+
+
+
+
+
+Galvin                   Best Current Practice                 [Page 10]
+
+RFC 2282                 IAB and IESG Selection            February 1998
+
+
+        It is consistent with these rules for some nominees to be
+        rejected early in the process and for some nominees to be kept
+        as alternates in case a candidate is rejected by a confirming
+        body.  In the matter of whether a confirmed candidate was a
+        first choice or an alternate, that information need not ever be
+        disclosed and, in fact, probably never should be.
+
+        It is consistent with these rules for confirmed candidates to be
+        notified and announced as quickly as possible instead of
+        requiring all confirmed candidates to wait until all open
+        positions have been reviewed.
+
+        When consulting with individual members of the IETF community,
+        if all parties to the consultation agree to observe customary
+        and reasonable rules of confidentiality the consultations are
+        permitted to include a slate of nominees.
+
+        The announcements must be publicized using at least the same
+        mechanism used by the IETF secretariat for its announcements.
+
+5.  Member Recall
+
+   The following rules apply to the recall process.  If necessary, a
+   paragraph discussing the interpretation of each rule is included.
+
+    (1)   Anyone may request the recall of any sitting IAB or IESG
+          member, at any time, upon written (email is acceptable)
+          request with justification to the Internet Society President.
+
+    (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 the
+          person being investigated and the person 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.
+
+
+
+
+Galvin                   Best Current Practice                 [Page 11]
+
+RFC 2282                 IAB and IESG Selection            February 1998
+
+
+        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.
+
+6.  Changes From RFC2027
+
+    (1)   In order to foster better communication between nominating
+          committees from one year to the next the Chair of each year's
+          committee has been added as a non-voting liaison of the next
+          year's committee.
+
+    (2)   In order to confirm the eligibility of each volunteer in the
+          pool of names from which nominating committee members are
+          chosen the Chair must announce the list prior to the random
+          selection.
+
+    (3)   In order to confirm the random selection process used to
+          select voting nominating committee members the Chair must
+          announce the fair and unbiased method used in advance of its
+          execution.
+
+    (4)   Some guidance was added to ensure that the nominating
+          committee consults with a broad base of the IETF community.
+
+    (5)   Some guidance was added to ensure that the nominating
+          committee understands that it may name prospective nominees
+          when consulting with individual members of the IETF community.
+
+    (6)   Some guidance was added to ensure that the nominating
+          committee understands that it is responsible for ensuring that
+          an appropriate set of one-half of each of the IESG and IAB
+          positions are reviewed each year.
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+Galvin                   Best Current Practice                 [Page 12]
+
+RFC 2282                 IAB and IESG Selection            February 1998
+
+
+7.  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
+   has a responsibility to maintain the confidentiality of any and all
+   information not explicitly identified as suitable for public
+   dissemination.
+
+8.  Editor's Address
+
+   James M. Galvin
+   eList eXpress LLC
+   PO Box 220
+   Glenwood, MD, 21738
+
+   EMail: galvin@elistx.com
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+Galvin                   Best Current Practice                 [Page 13]
+
+RFC 2282                 IAB and IESG Selection            February 1998
+
+
+9.  Full Copyright Statement
+
+   Copyright (C) The Internet Society (1998).  All Rights Reserved.
+
+   This document and translations of it may be copied and furnished to
+   others, and derivative works that comment on or otherwise explain it
+   or assist in its implementation may be prepared, copied, published
+   and distributed, in whole or in part, without restriction of any
+   kind, provided that the above copyright notice and this paragraph are
+   included on all such copies and derivative works.  However, this
+   document itself may not be modified in any way, such as by removing
+   the copyright notice or references to the Internet Society or other
+   Internet organizations, except as needed for the purpose of
+   developing Internet standards in which case the procedures for
+   copyrights defined in the Internet Standards process must be
+   followed, or as required to translate it into languages other than
+   English.
+
+   The limited permissions granted above are perpetual and will not be
+   revoked by the Internet Society or its successors or assigns.
+
+   This document and the information contained herein is provided on an
+   "AS IS" basis and THE INTERNET SOCIETY AND THE INTERNET ENGINEERING
+   TASK FORCE DISCLAIMS 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.
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+Galvin                   Best Current Practice                 [Page 14]
+