diff options
author | Thomas Voss <mail@thomasvoss.com> | 2024-11-27 20:54:24 +0100 |
---|---|---|
committer | Thomas Voss <mail@thomasvoss.com> | 2024-11-27 20:54:24 +0100 |
commit | 4bfd864f10b68b71482b35c818559068ef8d5797 (patch) | |
tree | e3989f47a7994642eb325063d46e8f08ffa681dc /doc/rfc/rfc7437.txt | |
parent | ea76e11061bda059ae9f9ad130a9895cc85607db (diff) |
doc: Add RFC documents
Diffstat (limited to 'doc/rfc/rfc7437.txt')
-rw-r--r-- | doc/rfc/rfc7437.txt | 1963 |
1 files changed, 1963 insertions, 0 deletions
diff --git a/doc/rfc/rfc7437.txt b/doc/rfc/rfc7437.txt new file mode 100644 index 0000000..c55df70 --- /dev/null +++ b/doc/rfc/rfc7437.txt @@ -0,0 +1,1963 @@ + + + + + + +Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) M. Kucherawy, Ed. +Request for Comments: 7437 January 2015 +BCP: 10 +Obsoletes: 3777, 5078, 5633, 5680, 6859 +Category: Best Current Practice +ISSN: 2070-1721 + + + IAB, IESG, and IAOC Selection, Confirmation, and Recall Process: + Operation of the Nominating and Recall Committees + +Abstract + + The process by which the members of the IAB and IESG, and some + members of the IAOC, are selected, confirmed, and recalled is + specified in this document. This document is a self-consistent, + organized compilation of the process as it was known at the time of + publication of RFC 3777, with various updates since that version was + published. + +Status of This Memo + + This memo documents an Internet Best Current Practice. + + This document is a product of the Internet Engineering Task Force + (IETF). It represents the consensus of the IETF community. It has + received public review and has been approved for publication by the + Internet Engineering Steering Group (IESG). Further information on + BCPs is available in Section 2 of RFC 5741. + + Information about the current status of this document, any errata, + and how to provide feedback on it may be obtained at + http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7437. + +Copyright Notice + + Copyright (c) 2015 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 + (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of + publication of this document. Please review these documents + carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect + to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must + include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of + the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as + described in the Simplified BSD License. + + + +Kucherawy Best Current Practice [Page 1] + +RFC 7437 NomCom January 2015 + + +Table of Contents + + 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 + 2. Definitions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 + 3. General . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 + 3.1. Completion Due . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 + 3.2. Nominating Committee Principal Functions . . . . . . . . 5 + 3.3. Positions To Be Reviewed . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 + 3.4. Term Lengths . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 + 3.5. Mid-term Vacancies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 + 3.6. Confidentiality . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 + 3.7. Advice and Consent Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 + 3.8. Sitting Members . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 + 3.9. Announcements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 + 4. Nominating Committee Selection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 + 4.1. Timeline . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 + 4.2. Term . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 + 4.3. Structure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 + 4.4. Chair Duties . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 + 4.5. Chair Selection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 + 4.6. Temporary Chair . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 + 4.7. Liaisons . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 + 4.8. Liaison Appointment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 + 4.9. Advisors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 + 4.10. Past Chair . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 + 4.11. Voting Volunteers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 + 4.12. Milestones . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 + 4.13. Open Positions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 + 4.14. Volunteer Qualification . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 + 4.15. Not Qualified . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 + 4.16. Selection Process . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 + 4.17. Announcement of Selection Results . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 + 4.18. Committee Organization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 + 5. Nominating Committee Operation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 + 5.1. Discretion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 + 5.2. Selection Timeline . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 + 5.3. Confirmation Timeline . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 + 5.4. Milestones . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 + 5.5. Voting Mechanism . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 + 5.6. Voting Quorum . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 + 5.7. Voting Member Recall . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 + 5.8. Chair Recall . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 + 5.9. Deliberations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 + 5.10. Call for Nominees . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 + 5.11. Nominations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 + 5.12. Candidate Selection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 + 5.13. Consent to Nomination . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 + 5.14. Notifying Confirming Bodies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26 + + + +Kucherawy Best Current Practice [Page 2] + +RFC 7437 NomCom January 2015 + + + 5.15. Confirming Candidates . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26 + 5.16. Archives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26 + 6. Dispute Resolution Process . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27 + 7. Member Recall . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28 + 7.1. Petition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28 + 7.2. Recall Committee Chair . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29 + 7.3. Recall Committee Creation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29 + 7.4. Recall Committee Rules . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29 + 7.5. Recall Committee Operation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29 + 7.6. 3/4 Majority . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29 + 7.7. Position To Be Filled . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29 + 8. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30 + 9. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30 + 9.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30 + 9.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30 + Appendix A. Changes Since RFC 3777 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31 + Appendix B. Oral Tradition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31 + Appendix C. Nominating Committee Timeline . . . . . . . . . . . 32 + Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35 + Author's Address . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35 + +1. Introduction + + This document is a revision of and supercedes BCP 10. It is in + essence a republishing of [RFC3777] and the other RFCs that updated + that document into a single specification. The result is a complete + specification of the process by which members of the IAB and IESG, + and some members of the IAOC, are selected, confirmed, and recalled + as of the date of its approval. + + Section 4 of [RFC4071] provides further details about the IAOC + positions that are filled by the nominating committee. + + 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 reorganization) 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. + + + +Kucherawy Best Current Practice [Page 3] + +RFC 7437 NomCom January 2015 + + + 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 is 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 selected. + + 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 IAOC, 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 [RFC3777]. + + An appendix of useful facts and practices collected from previous + nominating committees is also included. + +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. + + IETF Executive Director: The person charged with operation of the + IETF Secretariat function. (See Section 2 of [RFC3710]). + + + + + +Kucherawy Best Current Practice [Page 4] + +RFC 7437 NomCom January 2015 + + + nominee: A person who is being or has been considered for one or + more open positions of the IESG, IAB, or IAOC. + + 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. + +3.1. Completion Due + + The completion of the annual process is due within seven 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 eight 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. + + 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. + +3.2. Nominating Committee Principal Functions + + The principal functions of the nominating committee are to review + each open IESG, IAB, and IAOC position and to nominate either its + incumbent or a superior candidate. + + Although there is no term limit for serving in any IESG, IAB, or IAOC + position, the nominating committee may use length of service as one + of its criteria for evaluating an incumbent. + + + +Kucherawy Best Current Practice [Page 5] + +RFC 7437 NomCom January 2015 + + + 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 titles 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. + +3.3. Positions To Be Reviewed + + Approximately one-half of each of the then current IESG and IAB + positions, and one IAOC position, is selected to be reviewed each + year. + + The intent of this rule is to ensure the review of approximately one- + half of each of the IESG and IAB sitting members, and one of the two + nominated IAOC positions, each year. It is recognized that + circumstances may exist that will require the nominating committee to + review more or less than the usual number of positions, e.g., if the + IESG, IAB, or IAOC have reorganized prior to this process and created + new positions, if there are an odd number of current positions, or if + a member unexpectedly resigns. + +3.4. Term Lengths + + Confirmed candidates are expected to serve at least a two-year term. + + The intent of this rule is to ensure that members of the IESG, IAB, + and IAOC 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 two 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 three years in order to ensure the + ideal application of this rule in the future. + + + +Kucherawy Best Current Practice [Page 6] + +RFC 7437 NomCom January 2015 + + + 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 three + 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 and IAOC, 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. + +3.5. Mid-term Vacancies + + Mid-term vacancies are filled by the same rules as documented here + with four qualifications, namely: + + 1. 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. + + 2. 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 six weeks, with + all other time periods otherwise unspecified prorated + accordingly. + + + + +Kucherawy Best Current Practice [Page 7] + +RFC 7437 NomCom January 2015 + + + 3. 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. + + 4. 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 or + + B. the remainder of the term of the open position plus the next + two-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. + +3.6. Confidentiality + + 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. + + The list of nominees willing to be considered for positions under + review in the current nominating committee cycle is not confidential. + The nominating committee may disclose a list of names of nominees who + are willing to be considered for positions under review to the + community, in order to obtain feedback from the community on these + nominees. + + The list of nominees disclosed for a specific position should contain + only the names of nominees who are willing to be considered for the + position under review. + + The nominating committee may choose not to include some names in the + disclosed list, at their discretion. + + The nominating committee may disclose an updated list, at its + discretion. For example, the nominating committee might disclose an + + + +Kucherawy Best Current Practice [Page 8] + +RFC 7437 NomCom January 2015 + + + updated list if it identifies errors/omissions in a previously + disclosed version of the disclosed list, or if the nominating + committee finds it necessary to call for additional nominees, and + these nominees indicate a willingness to be considered before the + nominating committee has completed its deliberations. + + Nominees may choose to ask people to provide feedback to the + nominating committee but should not encourage any public statements + of support. Nominating committees should consider nominee-encouraged + lobbying and campaigning to be unacceptable behavior. + + IETF community members are encouraged to provide feedback on nominees + to the nominating committee but should not post statements of + support/non-support for nominees in any public forum. + +3.7. Advice and Consent Model + + Unless otherwise specified, the advice and consent model is used + throughout the process. This model is characterized as follows. + +3.7.1. Positions To Be Reviewed + + The IETF Executive Director informs the nominating committee of the + IESG, IAB, and IAOC positions to be reviewed. + + The IESG, IAB, and IAOC are responsible for providing a 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. + +3.7.2. Candidate Selection + + 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. + +3.7.3. Candidate Review + + 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 IAOC candidate is reviewed as specified in [RFC4071]. + + + +Kucherawy Best Current Practice [Page 9] + +RFC 7437 NomCom January 2015 + + + 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. + + 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. + +3.7.4. Confirmation + + 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. + + + + + + +Kucherawy Best Current Practice [Page 10] + +RFC 7437 NomCom January 2015 + + +3.8. Sitting Members + + The following rules apply to nominees and candidates who are + currently sitting members of the IESG, IAB, or IAOC 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, IAB, or IAOC 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, + IAOC, IESG, and nominating committee until the confirmed candidate is + announced for the new position. The process, according to 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: + + 1. The nominating committee completes the advice and consent process + for the open position being filled by the candidate currently + sitting on the IAB. + + 2. The newly confirmed candidate resigns from their current position + on the IAB. + + 3. The IAB with the new mid-term vacancy requests that the + nominating committee fill the position. + + + + +Kucherawy Best Current Practice [Page 11] + +RFC 7437 NomCom January 2015 + + + 4. The Executive Director of the IETF informs the nominating + committee of the mid-term vacancy. + + 5. The nominating committee acts on the request to fill the mid-term + vacancy. + +3.9. Announcements + + 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. + +4. Nominating Committee Selection + + The following set of rules apply to the creation of the nominating + committee and the selection of its members. + +4.1. Timeline + + The completion of the process of selecting and organizing the members + of the nominating committee is due within three 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. + +4.2. Term + + 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. + + + + +Kucherawy Best Current Practice [Page 12] + +RFC 7437 NomCom January 2015 + + + 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 when 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. + +4.3. Structure + + The nominating committee comprises at least a Chair, 10 voting + volunteers, two liaisons, and an advisor. + + 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. + + + +Kucherawy Best Current Practice [Page 13] + +RFC 7437 NomCom January 2015 + + + The Chair, liaisons, and advisors do not vote on the selection of + candidates. They do vote on all other issues before the committee + unless otherwise specified in this document. + +4.4. Chair Duties + + 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. + +4.5. Chair Selection + + 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. + +4.6. Temporary Chair + + 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 + + + + +Kucherawy Best Current Practice [Page 14] + +RFC 7437 NomCom January 2015 + + + 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. + +4.7. Liaisons + + 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 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. + + + + + + + +Kucherawy Best Current Practice [Page 15] + +RFC 7437 NomCom January 2015 + + +4.8. Liaison Appointment + + 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. + +4.9. Advisors + + 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. + +4.10. Past Chair + + 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 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. + +4.11. Voting Volunteers + + Voting volunteers are responsible for completing the tasks of the + nominating committee in a timely fashion. + + + + +Kucherawy Best Current Practice [Page 16] + +RFC 7437 NomCom January 2015 + + + 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. + +4.12. Milestones + + 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. + +4.13. Open Positions + + 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 nominating committee Chair when the incoming nominating + committee 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 nominating committee Chair judgment, in the nominating + committee 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 nominating committee Chair (if one has + been selected for this nominating committee cycle) or the previous + nominating committee Chair (if the search for an incoming nominating + committee Chair is still underway). + + 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. + + + + +Kucherawy Best Current Practice [Page 17] + +RFC 7437 NomCom January 2015 + + +4.14. Volunteer Qualification + + Members of the IETF community must have attended at least three of + the last five IETF meetings in order to volunteer. + + The five 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. + + 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. + +4.15. Not Qualified + + Any person who serves on any of the Internet Society Board of + Trustees, the IAB, the IESG, or the IAOC, including those who serve + on these bodies in ex officio positions, may not volunteer to serve + as voting members of the nominating committee. Liaisons to these + bodies from other bodies or organizations are not excluded by this + rule. + +4.16. Selection Process + + 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 one 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 + + + +Kucherawy Best Current Practice [Page 18] + +RFC 7437 NomCom January 2015 + + + 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 [RFC3797]. + +4.17. Announcement of Selection Results + + The Chair randomly selects the 10 voting volunteers from the pool of + names of volunteers and announces the members of the nominating + committee. + + 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 one 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 one 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. + + + +Kucherawy Best Current Practice [Page 19] + +RFC 7437 NomCom January 2015 + + + o 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. + + o 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. + + o 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 one day between + the announcement of the iteration and the selection process. + + After at least one 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. + +4.18. Committee Organization + + 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: + + o Setting up a regular teleconference schedule. + + o Setting up an internal web site. + + o Setting up a mailing list for internal discussions. + + o Setting up an email address for receiving community input. + + o Establishing operational procedures. + + o 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. + + + + +Kucherawy Best Current Practice [Page 20] + +RFC 7437 NomCom January 2015 + + + The rules are organized approximately in the order in which they + would be invoked. + +5.1. Discretion + + 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. + + 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. + +5.2. Selection Timeline + + The completion of the process of selecting candidates to be confirmed + by their respective confirming body is due within three months. + + The completion of the selection process is due at least two months + prior to the First IETF. This ensures the nominating committee has + sufficient time to complete the confirmation process. + +5.3. Confirmation Timeline + + The completion of the process of confirming the candidates is due + within one month. + + The completion of the confirmation process is due at least one month + prior to the First IETF. + +5.4. Milestones + + The Chair must establish a set of nominating committee 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 that, 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 are not confirmed. + + + +Kucherawy Best Current Practice [Page 21] + +RFC 7437 NomCom January 2015 + + + The Chair should ensure that all committee members are aware of the + milestones. + +5.5. Voting Mechanism + + 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. + +5.6. Voting Quorum + + At least a quorum of committee members must participate in a vote. + + Only voting volunteers vote on a candidate selection. For a + candidate selection vote, a quorum is comprised of at least seven of + the voting volunteers. + + At all other times, a quorum is present if at least 75% of the + nominating committee members are participating. + +5.7. Voting Member Recall + + 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. + + + + +Kucherawy Best Current Practice [Page 22] + +RFC 7437 NomCom January 2015 + + + 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 nine 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. + + 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. + +5.8. Chair Recall + + 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. + +5.9. Deliberations + + 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. + + + + + + + +Kucherawy Best Current Practice [Page 23] + +RFC 7437 NomCom January 2015 + + +5.10. Call for Nominees + + 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. + +5.11. Nominations + + 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 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, IAB, + or IAOC position during the previous two years are not eligible to be + considered for filling any open position. + +5.12. Candidate Selection + + 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 + + + + +Kucherawy Best Current Practice [Page 24] + +RFC 7437 NomCom January 2015 + + + 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, or the names are public as + discussed in Section 3.6. Feedback on individual nominees should + always be confidential. + + A broad base of the community should include the existing members of + the IAB, IAOC, 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. + +5.13. Consent to Nomination + + 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. + + 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. + + + + + + + + +Kucherawy Best Current Practice [Page 25] + +RFC 7437 NomCom January 2015 + + +5.14. Notifying Confirming Bodies + + 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 a brief resume of the candidate and/or a + brief summary of the deliberations of the nominating committee. + +5.15. Confirming Candidates + + 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. + + The nominating committee must ensure that all confirmed candidates + are prepared to serve prior to announcing their confirmation. + +5.16. Archives + + The nominating committee should archive the information it has + collected or produced for a period of time but 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. + + + + + +Kucherawy Best Current Practice [Page 26] + +RFC 7437 NomCom January 2015 + + + 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. + + 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. + + + + +Kucherawy Best Current Practice [Page 27] + +RFC 7437 NomCom January 2015 + + + 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. + +7.1. Petition + + 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, IAOC, 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. + + 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. + + + + +Kucherawy Best Current Practice [Page 28] + +RFC 7437 NomCom January 2015 + + + 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. + +7.2. Recall Committee Chair + + The 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. + +7.3. Recall Committee Creation + + 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. + +7.4. Recall Committee Rules + + The recall committee operates according to the same rules as the + nominating committee with the qualification that there is no + confirmation process. + +7.5. Recall Committee Operation + + 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. + +7.6. 3/4 Majority + + A 3/4 majority of the members who vote on the question is required + for a recall. + +7.7. Position To Be Filled + + If a sitting member is recalled, the open position is to be filled + according to the mid-term vacancy rules. + + + + + +Kucherawy Best Current Practice [Page 29] + +RFC 7437 NomCom January 2015 + + +8. 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. + +9. References + +9.1. Normative References + + [RFC3710] Alvestrand, H., "An IESG charter", RFC 3710, February + 2004, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3710>. + + [RFC3777] Galvin, J., "IAB and IESG Selection, Confirmation, and + Recall Process: Operation of the Nominating and Recall + Committees", BCP 10, RFC 3777, June 2004, + <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3777>. + + [RFC4071] Austein, R. and B. Wijnen, "Structure of the IETF + Administrative Support Activity (IASA)", BCP 101, RFC + 4071, April 2005, + <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4071>. + +9.2. Informative References + + [Err232] RFC Errata, "Erratum ID 232", RFC 3777. + + [Err4179] RFC Errata, "Erratum ID 4179", RFC 3777. + + [RFC3797] Eastlake, D., "Publicly Verifiable Nominations Committee + (NomCom) Random Selection", RFC 3797, June 2004, + <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3797>. + + + + + + + + + +Kucherawy Best Current Practice [Page 30] + +RFC 7437 NomCom January 2015 + + +Appendix A. Changes Since RFC 3777 + + o Converted source file from nroff to XML, resulting in some + reformatting. + + o Applied errata for RFC 3777 ([Err232] and [Err4179]). + + o Applied RFC 5078 update. + + o Applied RFC 5633 update. + + o Applied RFC 5680 update. + + o Applied RFC 6859 update. + + o Corrected a few grammatical errors. + + o Added a reference to RFC 3710. + +Appendix B. 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. + + + + +Kucherawy Best Current Practice [Page 31] + +RFC 7437 NomCom January 2015 + + + 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. + +Appendix C. 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 seven + months. It is expected to start nine months prior to the First IETF. + The time is split between three major components of the process + roughly 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. Four months are allotted for this process. + + 3. Third is the confirmation of the candidates by their respective + confirming bodies. Two months are allotted for this process. + + The following list captures the details of the milestones within each + component. For illustrative purposes, the list presumes the Friday + before the First IETF is March 1. Numbers shown in square brackets + indicate the expected number of weeks at each step. + + 1. BEGIN Eight Months Prior to First IETF (approx. June 1); + Internet Society President appoints the Chair. The appointment + must be done no later than the Second IETF or eight months prior + to the First IETF, whichever comes first. The Chair must be + announced and recognized during a plenary session of the Second + IETF. [0] + + + + +Kucherawy Best Current Practice [Page 32] + +RFC 7437 NomCom January 2015 + + + 2. The Chair establishes and announces milestones to ensure the + timely selection of the nominating committee members. [1] + + 3. 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, IAB, and IAOC open positions and descriptions from + the IETF Executive Director. [0] + + 4. 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 seven months and two + weeks prior to the First IETF (approx. June 15). [6] + + 5. After the solicitation closes, the Chair announces the pool of + volunteers and the date of the random selection, which must be + at least one week in the future. The announcement must be done + no later than six months and two weeks prior to the First IETF + (approx. July 15). [1] + + 6. On the appointed day, the random selection occurs and the Chair + announces the members of the committee and the one week + challenge period. The announcement must be done no later than + six months and one week prior to the First IETF (approx. July + 22). [1] + + 7. During the challenge period, the Chair contacts each of the + committee members and confirms their availability to + participate. [0] + + 8. 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 six months prior to the First IETF + (approx. August 1). [1] + + 9. 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 five months prior to the First IETF (approx. + September 15). [6] + + 10. END the Committee Member Selection Process; BEGIN the Selection + of Candidates; Time is at least five months prior to the First + IETF (approx. September 22). [0] + + + + + + + + +Kucherawy Best Current Practice [Page 33] + +RFC 7437 NomCom January 2015 + + + 11. 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 five months prior to the First IETF (approx. + October 1). [1] + + 12. Over the next three 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 two months + prior to the First IETF (approx. January 1). [17] + + 13. END the Selection of Candidates; BEGIN the Confirmation of + Candidates; Time is at least two months prior to the First IETF + (approx. January 1). [0] + + 14. The committee presents its candidates to their respective + confirming bodies. The presentation must be done no later than + two months prior to the First IETF (approx. January 1). [0] + + 15. The confirming bodies have one month to deliberate and, in + communication with the nominating committee, accept or reject + candidates. [4] + + 16. The Chair notifies and advises unsuccessful nominees that they + have not been selected. [1] + + 17. The Chair announces the confirmed candidates. The announcement + must be done no later than one month prior to the First IETF + (approx. February 1). [4] + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +Kucherawy Best Current Practice [Page 34] + +RFC 7437 NomCom January 2015 + + +Acknowledgments + + A great deal of work went into the RFCs that preceded this one. The + 2014 nominating committee and this editor would like to thank all of + them once again for the time and energy it took to get us to where we + are now. In no particular order, we acknowledge: + + Jeff Case Fred Baker John Curran + Guy Almes Geoff Huston Mike St. Johns + Donald Eastlake Avri Doria Bernard Adoba + Ted T'so Phil Roberts Jim Galvin + Harald Alvestrand Leslie Daigle Joel Halpern + Thomas Narten Spencer Dawkins Barry Leiba + Lars Eggert Ross Callon Brian Carpenter + Robert Elz Bernie Hoeneisen John Klensin + Danny McPherson S. Moonesamy Scott Bradner + Ralph Droms Pekka Savola + + Allison Mankin and Russ White provided early reviews and feedback + about this document. + + Jari Arkko was very helpful by independently verifying that the + previous text from all the merged documents was marshaled correctly + into this one, and Adrian Farrel and Brian Carpenter caught the nits + that fell through the cracks. + +Author's Address + + Murray S. Kucherawy (editor) + 270 Upland Drive + San Francisco, CA 94127 + United States + + EMail: superuser@gmail.com + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +Kucherawy Best Current Practice [Page 35] + |