diff options
Diffstat (limited to 'doc/rfc/rfc2727.txt')
| -rw-r--r-- | doc/rfc/rfc2727.txt | 843 |
1 files changed, 843 insertions, 0 deletions
diff --git a/doc/rfc/rfc2727.txt b/doc/rfc/rfc2727.txt new file mode 100644 index 0000000..4b408d4 --- /dev/null +++ b/doc/rfc/rfc2727.txt @@ -0,0 +1,843 @@ + + + + + + +Network Working Group J. Galvin +Request for Comments: 2727 eList eXpress LLC +BCP: 10 February 2000 +Obsoletes: 2282 +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 (2000). All Rights Reserved. + +Abstract + + The process by which the members of the IAB and IESG are selected, + confirmed, and recalled is specified. This document is a self- + consistent, organized compilation of the process as it was known at + the time of publication. + +Table of Contents + + 1 Introduction ................................................. 1 + 2 General ...................................................... 2 + 3 Nominating Committee Selection ............................... 6 + 4 Nominating Committee Operation ............................... 8 + 5 Member Recall ................................................ 11 + 6 Changes From RFC2282 ......................................... 12 + 7 Acknowledgements ............................................. 13 + 8 Security Considerations ...................................... 14 + 9 References ................................................... 14 + 10 Editor's Address ............................................ 14 + 11 Full Copyright Statement .................................... 15 + +1. Introduction + + This document is a revision of and supercedes RFC2282. It is a + complete specification of the process by which members of the IAB and + IESG are selected, confirmed, and recalled as of the date of its + approval. However, these procedures are subject to change and such + change takes effect immediately upon its approval, regardless of + + + +Galvin Best Current Practice [Page 1] + +RFC 2727 IAB and IESG Selection February 2000 + + + whether this document has yet been revised. + + The following two assumptions continue to be true of this + specification. + + (1) The Internet Research Task Force (IRTF) and Internet Research + Steering Group (IRSG) are not a part of the process described + here. + + (2) The organization (and re-organization) of the IESG is not a part + of the process described here. + + The time frames specified here use IETF meetings as a frame of + reference. The time frames assume that the IETF meets at least once + per calendar year. This document specifies time frames relative to + the first IETF of the calendar year, or simply "First IETF". + + 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: RFC2282. + +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. + + (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. + + + +Galvin Best Current Practice [Page 2] + +RFC 2727 IAB and IESG Selection February 2000 + + + 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 + First IETF. It is expected to begin 4 months prior to the Friday + of the week before the First 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 of 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 ideal + application of this rule in the future. + + + + + + +Galvin Best Current Practice [Page 3] + +RFC 2727 IAB and IESG Selection February 2000 + + + 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 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. 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 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. The confirmed + candidate's term may overlap the sitting member's term during the + meeting as determined by their mutual agreement. + + (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 2727 IAB and IESG Selection February 2000 + + + 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. + + (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 2727 IAB and IESG Selection February 2000 + + +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 comprises at least a non-voting Chair, 10 voting + volunteers, and 3 non-voting liaisons. + + Any committee member may propose the addition of a non-voting + advisor to participate in some or all of the deliberations of the + committee. The addition must be approved by both the voting and + non-voting members of the committee according to its established + voting mechanism. Advisors participate as individuals. + + Any committee member may propose the addition of a non-voting + liaison from other unrepresented organizations to participate in + some or all of the deliberations of the committee. The addition + must be approved by both the voting and non-voting members of the + committee according to its established voting mechanism. Liaisons + participate as representatives of their respective organizations. + + Advisors and liaisons must meet the usual requirements for + membership in the nominating committee. In the case of liaisons + the requirements apply to the organization not to the individual. + + (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 ensure that the nominating committee completes its + assigned duties and to perform in the best interests of the IETF + community in that role. + + (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. + + + +Galvin Best Current Practice [Page 6] + +RFC 2727 IAB and IESG Selection February 2000 + + + (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. + + (7) The Chair randomly selects the 10 voting volunteers 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 in favor of a specific 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 described in [1]. + + 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 select a designee from a pool composed + of the voting members of the prior year's committee and all prior + Chairs 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. + + 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. + + + + +Galvin Best Current Practice [Page 7] + +RFC 2727 IAB and IESG Selection February 2000 + + +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. + + 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 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 both the voting and non- + voting members of 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 + 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. + + + + + + + +Galvin Best Current Practice [Page 8] + +RFC 2727 IAB and IESG Selection February 2000 + + + (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 comprises 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. + + 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. They + become ineligible as soon as their role is announced to the IETF + community and they remain ineligible for the duration of this + nominating committee's term. + + + +Galvin Best Current Practice [Page 9] + +RFC 2727 IAB and IESG Selection February 2000 + + + (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. + + (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. + + + + + + + +Galvin Best Current Practice [Page 10] + +RFC 2727 IAB and IESG Selection February 2000 + + + 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. + + 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. + + + + +Galvin Best Current Practice [Page 11] + +RFC 2727 IAB and IESG Selection February 2000 + + + (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. + + 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 RFC2282 + + Editorial changes are not described here, only substantive changes. + They are listed here in the order in which they appear in the + document. + + (1) The frame of reference for timeframes was changed from the + seasonal "Spring IETF" reference to the less geographic and more + temporal "First IETF" reference. + + (2) The terms of the sitting members and their respective confirmed + candidates is explicitly permitted to overlap during the First + IETF as determined by their mutual agreement. + + (3) Nominating committee members who have served on prior committees + are explicitly permitted to advise the current committee on the + deliberations and results of the prior committee. + + + + + +Galvin Best Current Practice [Page 12] + +RFC 2727 IAB and IESG Selection February 2000 + + + (4) The role and opportunity for additional advisors and liaisons to + the nominating committee was clarified. + + (5) A reference to a documented and accepted fair and unbiased + mechanism for randomly selecting nominating committee members + from the pool of volunteers was added. + + (6) The option for the prior year's Chair to select a designee to + serve as liaison to the current year's committee was clarified + to ensure the Chair selected a non-voting liaison from a pool + composed of the prior year's voting members and all prior + committee Chairs. + + (7) The responsibility and authority for the activities of the + nominating committee rests with the committee as a whole, not + with the Chair. The operation of the committee was clarified to + require changes in process and the handling of exceptions to be + approved by the committee as a whole as opposed to being at the + discretion of the Chair. + + (8) The rule that prevented nominating committee members from being + eligible to be considered for any open position was clarified to + explicitly state that the rule applies from the point in time + that the committee membership is announced through the entire + term of the current committee. + +7. Acknowledgements + + There have been a number of people involved with the development of + this document over the years. A great deal of credit goes to the + first three Nominating Committee Chairs: + + 1993 - Jeff Case + + 1994 - Fred Baker + + 1995 - John Curran + + who had the pleasure of operating without the benefit of a documented + process. It was their fine work and oral tradition that became the + first version of this document. Of course we can not overlook the + bug discovery burden that each of the Chairs since the first + publication have had to endure: + + + + + + + + +Galvin Best Current Practice [Page 13] + +RFC 2727 IAB and IESG Selection February 2000 + + + 1996 - Guy Almes + + 1997 - Geoff Houston + + 1998 - Mike St. Johns + + 1999 - Donald Eastlake + + Of course the bulk of the credit goes to the members of the POISSON + Working Group, previously the POISED Working Group. The prose here + would not be what it is were it not for the attentive and insightful + review of its members. Specific acknowledgement must be extended to + Scott Bradner and John Klensin, who have consistently contributed to + the improvement of this document throughout its evolution. + +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 + has a responsibility to maintain the confidentiality of any and all + information not explicitly identified as suitable for public + dissemination. + +9. References + + [1] Eastlake, D., "Publicly Verifiable Nomcom Random Selection", RFC + 2777, February 2000. + +10. Editor's Address + + James M. Galvin + eList eXpress LLC + 607 Trixsam Road + Sykesville, MD 21784 + + EMail: galvin@elistx.com + + + + + + + + + + + + +Galvin Best Current Practice [Page 14] + +RFC 2727 IAB and IESG Selection February 2000 + + +11. Full Copyright Statement + + Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2000). 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. + +Acknowledgement + + Funding for the RFC Editor function is currently provided by the + Internet Society. + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +Galvin Best Current Practice [Page 15] + |