diff options
Diffstat (limited to 'doc/rfc/rfc2282.txt')
| -rw-r--r-- | doc/rfc/rfc2282.txt | 787 |
1 files changed, 787 insertions, 0 deletions
diff --git a/doc/rfc/rfc2282.txt b/doc/rfc/rfc2282.txt new file mode 100644 index 0000000..6e67345 --- /dev/null +++ b/doc/rfc/rfc2282.txt @@ -0,0 +1,787 @@ + + + + + + +Network Working Group J. Galvin +Request for Comments: 2282 eList eXpress LLC +BCP: 10 February 1998 +Obsoletes: 2027 +Category: Best Current Practice + + + IAB and IESG Selection, Confirmation, and Recall Process: + Operation of the Nominating and Recall Committees + +Status of this Memo + + This document specifies an Internet Best Current Practices for the + Internet Community, and requests discussion and suggestions for + improvements. Distribution of this memo is unlimited. + +Copyright Notice + + Copyright (C) The Internet Society (1998). All Rights Reserved. + +Abstract + + The process by which the members of the IAB and IESG are selected, + confirmed, and recalled is specified. The evolution of the process + has relied principally on oral tradition as a means by which the + lessons learned could be passed on to successive committees. This + document is a self-consistent, organized compilation of the process + as it is known today. + +Table of Contents + + 1 Introduction ................................................. 1 + 2 General ...................................................... 2 + 3 Nominating Committee Selection ............................... 6 + 4 Nominating Committee Operation ............................... 7 + 5 Member Recall ................................................ 11 + 6 Changes From RFC2027 ......................................... 12 + 7 Security Considerations ...................................... 13 + 8 Editor's Address ............................................. 13 + 9 Full Copyright Statement ..................................... 14 + +1. Introduction + + This document supercedes RFC2027, the first complete specification of + the process by which members of the IAB and IESG are selected, + confirmed, and recalled. Prior to that time, a single paragraph in + RFC1602 is the extent to which the process had been formally + recorded. + + + +Galvin Best Current Practice [Page 1] + +RFC 2282 IAB and IESG Selection February 1998 + + + This revision is based on the experience of the 1996 Nominating + Committee, the first committee to operate according to RFC2027. The + following two assumptions of that specification are also true for + this revision. + + (1) The Internet Research Task Force (IRTF) and Internet Research + Steering Group (IRSG) are not a part of the process described + here. + + (2) The organization (and re-organization) of the IESG is not a + part of the process described here. + + The time frames specified here use IETF meetings as a frame of + reference. The time frames assume that the IETF meets at least once + per year with that meeting occurring during the North American Spring + time, i.e., the IETF meets at least on or about March of each year. + + The remainder of this document is divided into four major topics as + follows. + + General + This a set of rules and constraints that apply to the selection + and confirmation process as a whole. + + Nominating Committee Selection + This is the process by which volunteers from the IETF community + are recognized to serve on the committee that nominates + candidates to serve on the IESG and IAB. + + Nominating Committee Operation + This is the set of principles, rules, and constraints that guide + the activities of the nominating committee, including the + confirmation process. + + Member Recall + This is the process by which the behavior of a sitting member of + the IESG or IAB may be questioned, perhaps resulting in the + removal of the sitting member. + + A final section describes how this document differs from its + predecessor: RFC2027. + +2. General + + The following set of rules apply to the selection and confirmation + process as a whole. If necessary, a paragraph discussing the + interpretation of each rule is included. + + + + +Galvin Best Current Practice [Page 2] + +RFC 2282 IAB and IESG Selection February 1998 + + + (1) The principal functions of the nominating committee are to + review the open IESG and IAB positions and to either nominate + its incumbent or recruit a superior candidate. + + The nominating committee does not select the open positions to + be reviewed; it is instructed as to which positions to review. + + At a minimum, the nominating committee will be given the title + of the position to be reviewed. The nominating committee may be + given a desirable set of qualifications for the candidate + nominated to fill each position. + + Incumbents must notify the nominating committee if they do not + wish to be nominated. + + The nominating committee does not confirm its candidates; it + presents its candidates to the appropriate confirming body as + indicated below. + + (2) The annual selection and confirmation process is expected to + be completed within 3 months. + + The annual selection and confirmation process is expected to be + completed one month prior to the friday of the week before the + Spring IETF. It is expected to begin 4 months prior to the + friday of the week before the Spring IETF. + + (3) One-half of each of the then current IESG and IAB positions is + selected to be reviewed each year. + + The intent of this rule to ensure the review of approximately + one-half of each of the sitting IESG and IAB members each year. + It is recognized that circumstances may exist that will require + the nominating committee to review more or less than one-half of + the current positions, e.g., if the IESG or IAB have re- + organized prior to this process and created new positions, or if + there are an odd number current positions. + + (4) Confirmed candidates are expected to serve at least a 2 year + term. + + The intent of this rule is to ensure that members of the IESG + and IAB serve the number of years that best facilitates the + review of one-half of the members each year. + + It is consistent with this rule for the nominating committee to + choose one or more of the currently open positions to which it + may assign a term greater than 2 years in order to ensure the + + + +Galvin Best Current Practice [Page 3] + +RFC 2282 IAB and IESG Selection February 1998 + + + ideal application of this rule in the future. + + It is consistent with this rule for the nominating committee to + choose one or more of the currently open positions that share + responsibilities with other positions (both those being reviewed + and those sitting) to which it may assign a term greater than 2 + years to ensure that all such members will not be reviewed at + the same time. + + All member terms begin and end during the Spring IETF meeting + corresponding to the end of the term for which they were + confirmed. Normally, the confirmed candidate's term begins when + the currently sitting member's term ends on the last day of the + meeting. A term may begin or end no sooner than the first day + of the meeeting as determined by the mutual agreement of the + currently sitting member and the confirmed candidate. + + (5) Mid-term vacancies are filled by the same rules as documented + here with four qualifications. First, the most recently + constituted nominating committee is reconvened to nominate a + candidate to fill the vacancy. Second, the selection and + confirmation process is expected to be completed within 1 + month, with all other time periods otherwise unspecified + prorated accordingly. Third, the confirming body has two + weeks from the day it is notified of a candidate to reject the + candidate, otherwise the candidate is assumed to have been + confirmed. Fourth, the term of the confirmed candidate will + be either: + + a. the remainder of the term of the open position if that remainder + is not less than one year. + + b. the remainder of the term of the open position plus the next 2 + year term if that remainder is less than one year. + + (6) All deliberations and supporting information that relates to + specific nominees, candidates, and confirmed candidates are + confidential. + + The nominating committee and confirming body members will be + exposed to confidential information as a result of their + deliberations, their interactions with those they consult, and + from those who provide requested supporting information. All + members and all other participants are expected to handle this + information in a manner consistent with its sensitivity. + + + + + + +Galvin Best Current Practice [Page 4] + +RFC 2282 IAB and IESG Selection February 1998 + + + (7) Unless otherwise specified, the advise and consent model is + used throughout the process. This model is characterized as + follows. + + a. The IETF Executive Director advises the nominating committee of + the IESG and IAB positions to be reviewed. + + b. The nominating committee selects candidates and advises the + confirming bodies of them. + + c. The sitting IAB members review the IESG candidates, consenting + to some, all, or none. + + If all of the candidates are confirmed, the job of the + nominating committee with respect to reviewing the open IESG + positions is considered complete. If some or none of the + candidates are confirmed, the nominating committee must + reconvene to select alternate candidates for the rejected + candidates. Any additional time required by the nominating + committee should not exceed its maximum time allotment. + + d. The Internet Society Board of Trustees reviews the IAB + candidates, consenting to some, all, or none. + + If all of the candidates are confirmed, the job of the + nominating committee with respect to reviewing the open IAB + positions is considered complete. If some or none of the + candidates are confirmed, the nominating committee must + reconvene to select alternate candidates for the rejected + candidates. Any additional time required by the nominating + committee should not exceed its maximum time allotment. + + e. The confirming bodies decide their consent according to a + mechanism of their own choosing, which must ensure that at least + one-half of the sitting members agree with the decision. + + At least one-half of the sitting members of the confirming + bodies must agree to either confirm or reject each individual + nominee. The agreement must be decided within a reasonable + timeframe. The agreement may be decided by conducting a formal + vote, by asserting consensus based on informal exchanges + (email), or by whatever mechanism is used to conduct the normal + business of the confirming body. + + + + + + + + +Galvin Best Current Practice [Page 5] + +RFC 2282 IAB and IESG Selection February 1998 + + + 3. Nominating Committee Selection + + The following set of rules apply to the creation of the nominating + committee and the selection of its members. + + (1) The committee is comprised of at least a non-voting Chair, 10 + voting volunteers, and 3 non-voting liaisons. + + A Chair is permitted to invite additional non-voting advisors to + participate in some or all of the deliberations of the + committee. + + (2) The Internet Society President appoints the non-voting Chair, + who must meet the usual requirements for membership in the + nominating committee. + + The nominating committee Chair must agree to invest the time + necessary to complete the duties of the nominating committee and + to perform in the best interests of the IETF community during + the performance of those duties. + + (3) The Chair obtains the list of IESG and IAB positions to be + reviewed and publishes it along with a solicitation for names + of volunteers from the IETF community willing to serve on the + nominating committee. + + The list of open positions is published with the solicitation to + facilitate community members choosing between volunteering for + an open position and volunteering for the nominating committee. + + The list and solicitation must be publicized using at least the + same mechanism used by the IETF secretariat for its + announcements. + + (4) Members of the IETF community must have attended at least 2 of + the last 3 IETF meetings in order to volunteer. + + (5) Internet Society Board of Trustees, sitting members of the + IAB, and sitting members of the IESG may not volunteer. + + (6) The Chair announces the pool of volunteers from which the 10 + voting volunteers will be randomly selected. + + The announcement must be made using at least the same mechanism + used by the IETF secretariat for its announcements. + + + + + + +Galvin Best Current Practice [Page 6] + +RFC 2282 IAB and IESG Selection February 1998 + + + (7) The Chair randomly selects the 10 voting voluteers from the + pool of names of volunteers using a method that can be + independently verified to be unbiased and fair. + + A method is fair if each eligible volunteer is equally likely to + be selected. A method is unbiased if no one can influence its + outcome. + + The method must include an announcement of an enumerated list of + the pool of names together with the specific algorithm for how + names will be chosen from the list. The output of the selection + algorithm must depend on random data whose value is not known at + the time the list and algorithm are announced. + + One possible method is to compute the MD5 hash of future winning + lottery numbers and use the result to select names from the + list. + + All announcements must be made using at least the mechanism used + by the IETF secretariat for its announcements. + + (8) The sitting IAB and IESG members each appoint a non-voting + liaison to the nominating committee from their current + membership who are not sitting in an open position. + + (9) The Chair of the prior year's nominating committee serves as a + non-voting liaison. + + The prior year's Chair may designate an alternate voting member + from the prior year's committee if the Chair is unavailable. If + the prior year's Chair is unavailable and is unable or unwilling + to make such a designation in a timely fashion, the Chair of the + current committee may do so. + + (10) The Chair may solicit additional non-voting liaisons from + other organizations, who must meet the usual requirements for + membership in the nominating committee. + +4. Nominating Committee Operation + + The following rules apply to the operation of the nominating + committee. If necessary, a paragraph discussing the interpretation + of each rule is included. + + The rules are organized approximately in the order in which they + would be invoked. + + + + + +Galvin Best Current Practice [Page 7] + +RFC 2282 IAB and IESG Selection February 1998 + + + The term nominee refers to an individual under consideration by the + nominating committee. The term candidate refers to a nominee that + has been selected by the nominating committee to be considered for + confirmation by a confirming body. A confirmed candidate is a + candidate that has been reviewed and approved by a confirming body. + + (1) All rules and special circumstances not otherwise specified + are at the discretion of the Chair. + + Exceptional circumstances will occasionally arise during the + normal operation of the nominating committee. This rule is + intended to foster the continued forward progress of the + committee. All members of the committee should consider whether + the exception is worthy of mention in the next revision of this + document and followup accordingly. + + (2) The Chair must establish and publicize milestones, which must + include at least a call for nominations. + + There is a defined time period during which the selection and + confirmation process must be completed. The Chair must + establish a set of milestones which, if met in a timely fashion, + will result in the completion of the process on time. The Chair + should allow time for iterating the activities of the committee + if one or more candidates is not confirmed. + + The milestones must be publicized using at least the same + mechanism used by the IETF secretariat for its announcements. + + (3) The Chair must establish a voting mechanism. + + The committee must be able to objectively determine when a + decision has been made during its deliberations. The criteria + for determining closure must be established and known to all + members of the nominating committee. + + (4) At least a quorum of committee members must participate in a + vote. A quorum is comprised of at least 7 voting members. + + (5) The Chair may establish a process by which a member of the + nominating committee may be recalled. + + The process, if established, must be agreed to by a 3/4 majority + of the members of the nominating committee, including the non- + voting members since they would be subject to the same process. + + (6) All members of the nominating committee may participate in all + deliberations. + + + +Galvin Best Current Practice [Page 8] + +RFC 2282 IAB and IESG Selection February 1998 + + + The emphasis of this rule is that no member, whether voting or + non-voting, can be explicitly excluded from any deliberation. + However, a member may individually choose not to participate in + a deliberation. + + (7) The Chair announces the open positions to be reviewed and the + call for nominees. + + The call for nominees must include a request for comments + regarding the past performance of incumbents, which will be + considered during the deliberations of the nominating committee. + + The announcements must be publicized using at least the same + mechanism used by the IETF secretariat for its announcements. + + (8) Any member of the IETF community may nominate any member of + the IETF community for any open position. + + A self-nomination is permitted. + + (9) Nominating committee members must not be nominees. + + To be a nominee is to enter the process of being selected as a + candidate and confirmed. Nominating committee members are not + eligible to be considered for filling any open position. + + (10) Members of the IETF community who were recalled from any IESG + or IAB position during the previous two years must not be + nominees. + + (11) The nominating committee selects candidates based on its + understanding of the IETF community's consensus of the + qualifications required to fill the open positions. + + The intent of this rule is to ensure that the nominating + committee consults with a broad base of the IETF community for + input to its deliberations. + + The consultations are permitted to include a slate of nominees, + if all parties to the consultation agree to observe customary + and reasonable rules of confidentiality. + + A broad base of the community should include the existing + members of the IAB and IESG, especially sitting members who + share responsibilities with open positions, e.g., co-Area + Directors. + + + + + +Galvin Best Current Practice [Page 9] + +RFC 2282 IAB and IESG Selection February 1998 + + + (12) Nominees should be advised that they are being considered and + must consent to their nomination prior to being confirmed. + + The nominating committee should help nominees provide + justification to their employers. + + A nominee's consent must be written (email is acceptable) and + include a commitment to provide the resources necessary to fill + the open position and an assurance that the nominee will perform + the duties of the position for which they are being considered + in the best interests of the IETF community. + + (13) The nominating committee advises the confirming bodies of + their candidates, specifying a single candidate for each open + position and a testament as to how each candidate meets the + qualifications of an open position. + + The testament may include a brief resume of the candidate and a + summary of the deliberations of the nominating committee. + + (14) With respect to any action to be taken in the context of + notifying and announcing confirmed candidates, and notifying + rejected nominees and candidates, the action must be valid + according to all of the rules specified below prior to its + execution. + + a. Up until a candidate is confirmed, the identity of the candidate + must be kept confidential. + + b. The identity of all nominees must be kept confidential (except + that the nominee may publicize their intentions). + + c. Rejected nominees may be notified as soon as they are rejected. + + d. Rejected candidates may be notified as soon as they are + rejected. + + e. Rejected nominees and candidates must be notified prior to + announcing confirmed candidates. + + f. Confirmed candidates may be notified and announced as soon as + they are confirmed. + + It is consistent with these rules for a nominee to never know if + they were a candidate or not. + + + + + + +Galvin Best Current Practice [Page 10] + +RFC 2282 IAB and IESG Selection February 1998 + + + It is consistent with these rules for some nominees to be + rejected early in the process and for some nominees to be kept + as alternates in case a candidate is rejected by a confirming + body. In the matter of whether a confirmed candidate was a + first choice or an alternate, that information need not ever be + disclosed and, in fact, probably never should be. + + It is consistent with these rules for confirmed candidates to be + notified and announced as quickly as possible instead of + requiring all confirmed candidates to wait until all open + positions have been reviewed. + + When consulting with individual members of the IETF community, + if all parties to the consultation agree to observe customary + and reasonable rules of confidentiality the consultations are + permitted to include a slate of nominees. + + The announcements must be publicized using at least the same + mechanism used by the IETF secretariat for its announcements. + +5. Member Recall + + The following rules apply to the recall process. If necessary, a + paragraph discussing the interpretation of each rule is included. + + (1) Anyone may request the recall of any sitting IAB or IESG + member, at any time, upon written (email is acceptable) + request with justification to the Internet Society President. + + (2) Internet Society President shall appoint a Recall Committee + Chair. + + The Internet Society President must not evaluate the recall + request. It is explicitly the responsibility of the IETF + community to evaluate the behavior of its leaders. + + (3) The recall committee is created according to the same rules as + is the nominating committee with the qualifications that the + person being investigated and the person requesting the recall + must not be a member of the recall committee in any capacity. + + (4) The recall committee operates according to the same rules as + the nominating committee with the qualification that there is + no confirmation process. + + (5) The recall committee investigates the circumstances of the + justification for the recall and votes on its findings. + + + + +Galvin Best Current Practice [Page 11] + +RFC 2282 IAB and IESG Selection February 1998 + + + The investigation must include at least both an opportunity for + the member being recalled to present a written statement and + consultation with third parties. + + (6) A 3/4 majority of the members who vote on the question is + required for a recall. + + (7) If a sitting member is recalled the open position is to be + filled according to the mid-term vacancy rules. + +6. Changes From RFC2027 + + (1) In order to foster better communication between nominating + committees from one year to the next the Chair of each year's + committee has been added as a non-voting liaison of the next + year's committee. + + (2) In order to confirm the eligibility of each volunteer in the + pool of names from which nominating committee members are + chosen the Chair must announce the list prior to the random + selection. + + (3) In order to confirm the random selection process used to + select voting nominating committee members the Chair must + announce the fair and unbiased method used in advance of its + execution. + + (4) Some guidance was added to ensure that the nominating + committee consults with a broad base of the IETF community. + + (5) Some guidance was added to ensure that the nominating + committee understands that it may name prospective nominees + when consulting with individual members of the IETF community. + + (6) Some guidance was added to ensure that the nominating + committee understands that it is responsible for ensuring that + an appropriate set of one-half of each of the IESG and IAB + positions are reviewed each year. + + + + + + + + + + + + + +Galvin Best Current Practice [Page 12] + +RFC 2282 IAB and IESG Selection February 1998 + + +7. Security Considerations + + Any selection, confirmation, or recall process necessarily involves + investigation into the qualifications and activities of prospective + candidates. The investigation may reveal confidential or otherwise + private information about candidates to those participating in the + process. Each person who participates in any aspect of the process + has a responsibility to maintain the confidentiality of any and all + information not explicitly identified as suitable for public + dissemination. + +8. Editor's Address + + James M. Galvin + eList eXpress LLC + PO Box 220 + Glenwood, MD, 21738 + + EMail: galvin@elistx.com + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +Galvin Best Current Practice [Page 13] + +RFC 2282 IAB and IESG Selection February 1998 + + +9. Full Copyright Statement + + Copyright (C) The Internet Society (1998). All Rights Reserved. + + This document and translations of it may be copied and furnished to + others, and derivative works that comment on or otherwise explain it + or assist in its implementation may be prepared, copied, published + and distributed, in whole or in part, without restriction of any + kind, provided that the above copyright notice and this paragraph are + included on all such copies and derivative works. However, this + document itself may not be modified in any way, such as by removing + the copyright notice or references to the Internet Society or other + Internet organizations, except as needed for the purpose of + developing Internet standards in which case the procedures for + copyrights defined in the Internet Standards process must be + followed, or as required to translate it into languages other than + English. + + The limited permissions granted above are perpetual and will not be + revoked by the Internet Society or its successors or assigns. + + This document and the information contained herein is provided on an + "AS IS" basis and THE INTERNET SOCIETY AND THE INTERNET ENGINEERING + TASK FORCE DISCLAIMS ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING + BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF THE INFORMATION + HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF + MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +Galvin Best Current Practice [Page 14] + |