summaryrefslogtreecommitdiff
path: root/doc/rfc/rfc7437.txt
diff options
context:
space:
mode:
authorThomas Voss <mail@thomasvoss.com> 2024-11-27 20:54:24 +0100
committerThomas Voss <mail@thomasvoss.com> 2024-11-27 20:54:24 +0100
commit4bfd864f10b68b71482b35c818559068ef8d5797 (patch)
treee3989f47a7994642eb325063d46e8f08ffa681dc /doc/rfc/rfc7437.txt
parentea76e11061bda059ae9f9ad130a9895cc85607db (diff)
doc: Add RFC documents
Diffstat (limited to 'doc/rfc/rfc7437.txt')
-rw-r--r--doc/rfc/rfc7437.txt1963
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]
+