diff options
Diffstat (limited to 'doc/rfc/rfc3777.txt')
| -rw-r--r-- | doc/rfc/rfc3777.txt | 1907 |
1 files changed, 1907 insertions, 0 deletions
diff --git a/doc/rfc/rfc3777.txt b/doc/rfc/rfc3777.txt new file mode 100644 index 0000000..6f31744 --- /dev/null +++ b/doc/rfc/rfc3777.txt @@ -0,0 +1,1907 @@ + + + + + + +Network Working Group J. Galvin, Ed. +Request for Comments: 3777 eList eXpress LLC +Obsoletes: 2727 June 2004 +BCP: 10 +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 (2004). + +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 . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 + 2. Definitions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 + 3. General . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 + 4. Nominating Committee Selection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 + 5. Nominating Committee Operation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 + 6. Dispute Resolution Process . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 + 7. Member Recall . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 + 8. Changes From RFC 2727. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26 + 9. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28 + 10. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29 + 11. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29 + A. Oral Tradition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30 + B. Nominating Committee Timeline . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31 + Author's Address . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33 + Full Copyright Statement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34 + + + + + + + +Galvin Best Current Practice [Page 1] + +RFC 3777 IAB and IESG Selection June 2004 + + +1. Introduction + + This document is a revision of and supercedes RFC 2727 [2]. 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. + + 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 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. + + 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 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 recognized. + + 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: RFC 2727 [2]. + + An appendix of useful facts and practices collected from previous + nominating committees is also included. + + + +Galvin Best Current Practice [Page 2] + +RFC 3777 IAB and IESG Selection June 2004 + + +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. + + nominee: A person who is being or has been considered for one or more + open positions of the IESG or IAB. + + 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. + + 1. The completion of the annual process is due within 7 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 8 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. + + + +Galvin Best Current Practice [Page 3] + +RFC 3777 IAB and IESG Selection June 2004 + + + 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. + + 2. The principal functions of the nominating committee are to review + each open IESG and IAB position and to either nominate its + incumbent or a superior candidate. + + Although there is no term limit for serving in any IESG or IAB + position, the nominating committee may use length of service as + one of its criteria for evaluating an incumbent. + + 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 title 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. 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 IESG and IAB sitting 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, if there are an + odd number of current positions, or if a member unexpectedly + resigns. + + + + + + + +Galvin Best Current Practice [Page 4] + +RFC 3777 IAB and IESG Selection June 2004 + + + 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. + + The term of a confirmed candidate selected according to the mid- + term vacancy rules may be less than 2 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 3 years in order to ensure the + 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 of not more than + 3 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 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. + + + + + + + + + +Galvin Best Current Practice [Page 5] + +RFC 3777 IAB and IESG Selection June 2004 + + + 5. Mid-term vacancies are filled by the same rules as documented here + with four qualifications. + + First, 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. + + Second, 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 6 + weeks, 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: + + 1. the remainder of the term of the open position if that + remainder is not less than one year. + + 2. the remainder of the term of the open position plus the next 2 + 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. + + 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. + + 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. + + + +Galvin Best Current Practice [Page 6] + +RFC 3777 IAB and IESG Selection June 2004 + + + 7. Unless otherwise specified, the advice and consent model is used + throughout the process. This model is characterized as follows. + + 1. The IETF Executive Director informs the nominating committee of + the IESG and IAB positions to be reviewed. + + The IESG and IAB are responsible for providing 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. + + 2. 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. 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 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. + + + + + + +Galvin Best Current Practice [Page 7] + +RFC 3777 IAB and IESG Selection June 2004 + + + 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. + + 4. 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. + + 8. The following rules apply to nominees candidates who are currently + sitting members of the IESG or IAB, 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 or IAB 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, IESG, and nominating committee until the confirmed candidate + is announced for the new position. The process, according to + + + + + +Galvin Best Current Practice [Page 8] + +RFC 3777 IAB and IESG Selection June 2004 + + + 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. + + * The nominating committee completes the advice and consent + process for the open position being filled by the candidate + currently sitting on the IAB. + + * The newly confirmed candidate resigns from their current + position on the IAB. + + * The IAB with the new mid-term vacancy requests that the + nominating committee fill the position. + + * The Executive Director of the IETF informs the nominating + committee of the mid-term vacancy. + + * The nominating committee acts on the request to fill the mid- + term vacancy. + + 9. 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. + + + + + + + +Galvin Best Current Practice [Page 9] + +RFC 3777 IAB and IESG Selection June 2004 + + +4. Nominating Committee Selection + + The following set of rules apply to the creation of the nominating + committee and the selection of its members. + + 1. The completion of the process of selecting and organizing the + members of the nominating committee is due within 3 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. + + 2. 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. + + 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 that 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. + + 3. The nominating committee comprises at least a Chair, 10 voting + volunteers, 3 liaisons, and an advisor. + + + +Galvin Best Current Practice [Page 10] + +RFC 3777 IAB and IESG Selection June 2004 + + + 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. + + None of the Chair, liaisons, or advisors vote on the selection of + candidates. They do vote on all other issues before the + committee unless otherwise specified in this document. + + 4. 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. + + + + +Galvin Best Current Practice [Page 11] + +RFC 3777 IAB and IESG Selection June 2004 + + + 5. 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. + + 6. 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 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. + + 7. 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 + + + +Galvin Best Current Practice [Page 12] + +RFC 3777 IAB and IESG Selection June 2004 + + + 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. + + 8. 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. + + 9. 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. + + 10. 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 + + + +Galvin Best Current Practice [Page 13] + +RFC 3777 IAB and IESG Selection June 2004 + + + 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. + + 11. Voting volunteers are responsible for completing the tasks of the + nominating committee in a timely fashion. + + 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. + + 12. 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. + + 13. The Chair obtains the list of IESG and IAB 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. + + 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. + + 14. Members of the IETF community must have attended at least 3 of + the last 5 IETF meetings in order to volunteer. + + The 5 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. + + + + + +Galvin Best Current Practice [Page 14] + +RFC 3777 IAB and IESG Selection June 2004 + + + 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. + + 15. Members of the Internet Society Board of Trustees, sitting + members of the IAB, and sitting members of the IESG may not + volunteer to serve on the nominating committee. + + 16. 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 1 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 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 RFC 2777 [1]. + + 17. The Chair randomly selects the 10 voting volunteers from the pool + of names of volunteers and announces the members of the + nominating committee. + + + + + +Galvin Best Current Practice [Page 15] + +RFC 3777 IAB and IESG Selection June 2004 + + + 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 1 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 1 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. + + * 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. + + * 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. + + + + + + + + +Galvin Best Current Practice [Page 16] + +RFC 3777 IAB and IESG Selection June 2004 + + + * 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 1 day + between the announcement of the iteration and the selection + process. + + After at least 1 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. + + 18. 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. + + * Setting up a regular teleconference schedule. + + * Setting up an internal web site. + + * Setting up a mailing list for internal discussions. + + * Setting up an email address for receiving community input. + + * Establishing operational procedures. + + * 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. + + The rules are organized approximately in the order in which they + would be invoked. + + 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. + + + + +Galvin Best Current Practice [Page 17] + +RFC 3777 IAB and IESG Selection June 2004 + + + 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. + + 2. The completion of the process of selecting candidates to be + confirmed by their respective confirming body is due within 3 + months. + + The completion of the selection process is due at least two + month's prior to the First IETF. This ensures the nominating + committee has sufficient time to complete the confirmation + process. + + 3. The completion of the process of confirming the candidates is due + within 1 month. + + The completion of the confirmation process is due at least one + month prior to the First IETF. + + 4. The Chair must establish for the nominating committee a set of + 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 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 Chair should ensure that all committee members are aware of + the milestones. + + 5. 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. + + 6. At least a quorum of committee members must participate in a + vote. + + + + + + +Galvin Best Current Practice [Page 18] + +RFC 3777 IAB and IESG Selection June 2004 + + + Only voting volunteers vote on a candidate selection. For a + candidate selection vote a quorum is comprised of at least 7 of + the voting volunteers. + + At all other times a quorum is present if at least 75% of the + nominating committee members are participating. + + 7. 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. + + 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 9 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. + + + +Galvin Best Current Practice [Page 19] + +RFC 3777 IAB and IESG Selection June 2004 + + + 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. + + 8. 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. + + 9. 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. + + 10. 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. + + 11. 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 + + + +Galvin Best Current Practice [Page 20] + +RFC 3777 IAB and IESG Selection June 2004 + + + 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 or + IAB position during the previous two years are not eligible to be + considered for filling any open position. + + 12. 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 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. + + 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, + and working group chairs, especially those in the areas with open + positions. + + Only voting volunteer members vote to select candidates. + + 13. 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. + + + + + +Galvin Best Current Practice [Page 21] + +RFC 3777 IAB and IESG Selection June 2004 + + + 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. + + 14. 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 either or both of a brief resume of the + candidate and a brief summary of the deliberations of the + nominating committee. + + 15. 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. + + + +Galvin Best Current Practice [Page 22] + +RFC 3777 IAB and IESG Selection June 2004 + + + The nominating committee must ensure that all confirmed + candidates are prepared to serve prior to announcing their + confirmation. + + 16. The nominating committee should archive the information it has + collected or produced for a period of time 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. + + 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. + + + + +Galvin Best Current Practice [Page 23] + +RFC 3777 IAB and IESG Selection June 2004 + + + 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. + + 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. + + 1. 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 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. + + + +Galvin Best Current Practice [Page 24] + +RFC 3777 IAB and IESG Selection June 2004 + + + 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. + + 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. + + 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 both the + person being investigated and the parties 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. + + + + + + + + + +Galvin Best Current Practice [Page 25] + +RFC 3777 IAB and IESG Selection June 2004 + + +8. Changes From RFC 2727 + + This section describes the substantive changes from RFC 2727, listed + approximately in the order in which they appear in the document. + + 1. A section with definitions for words and phrases used throughout + the document was inserted. + + 2. The role of term limits as a selection criterion was clarified. + + 3. The nominating committee must now be provided with a brief + description of the desirable expertise for each candidate to be + nominated for each position. + + 4. Because of the overlapping terms of successive nominating + committees, the specific committee responsible for a mid-term + vacancy was specified. + + 5. The characterization of the advice and consent model was revised + to permit the confirming body to communicate with the nominating + committee during the approval process. + + 6. A general rule was added to define that all announcements are + made with the usual IETF Secretariat mechanism. + + 7. Details regarding the expected timeline of the selection and + operation of the committee were made even more explicit. An + Appendix was added that captures all the details for the + convenience of the reader. + + 8. The term of the nominating committee was extended to + approximately 15 months such that it explicitly overlaps by + approximately 3 months the next year's nominating committee's + term. + + 9. The terms voting member and non-voting member were replaced by + voting volunteers, liaisons, and advisors. All members vote at + all times except that only voting volunteers vote on a candidate + selection. + + 10. The responsibilities of the Chair, liaisons, advisors, and voting + volunteers is now explicitly stated. + + 11. Processes for recalling members of the committee were added. + + 12. Liaisons and advisors are no longer required to meet the usual + requirements for nominating committee membership. + + + + +Galvin Best Current Practice [Page 26] + +RFC 3777 IAB and IESG Selection June 2004 + + + 13. The Internet Society Board of Trustees may appoint a non-voting + liaison. + + 14. The eligibility qualifications for the nominating committee were + changed to require attendance at 3 out of 5 of the last five + meetings, to require volunteers to submit identifying contact + information, and to request that volunteers be familiar with IETF + processes and procedures. + + 15. Some additional clarification was added to the method used to + select volunteers. + + 16. The process for selecting the 10 voting volunteers had several + clarifications and additional requirements added, including a + challenge process and the requirement to disallow more than two + volunteers with the same primary affiliation. + + 17. Nominations for open positions should include both contact + information and a description of the skills or expertise the + nominator believes the nominee possesses. + + 18. Nominees are requested to keep the nominating committee informed + of changes in their contact information. Editorially, the + distinction between a nominee and candidate was emphasized. + + 19. A description of a testimony to be provided with each candidate + to a confirming body by the nominating committee is specified. + + 20. The rules regarding the announcement of confirmed candidates were + substantially rewritten to make it easier to understand. + + 21. The nominating committee is permitted to keep an archive for the + duration of its term of the information it collects and produces + for its own internal use. + + 22. A dispute resolution process for addressing process concerns was + added. + + 23. The process for recalling a sitting member of the IAB and IESG + requires at least 20 eligible members of the IETF community to + sign a petition requesting the recall. + + 24. The section on Security Considerations was expanded. + + 25. Appendix A, Oral Tradition, has been added. + + 26. Appendix B, Nominating Committee Timeline, has been added as a + convenience to the reader. + + + +Galvin Best Current Practice [Page 27] + +RFC 3777 IAB and IESG Selection June 2004 + + +9. Acknowledgements + + There have been a number of people involved with the development of + this document over the years as it has progressed from RFC 2027 + through RFC 2282 [3] and RFC 2727 [2] to its current version. + + 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: + + 1996 - Guy Almes + + 1997 - Geoff Huston + + 1998 - Mike St. Johns + + 1999 - Donald Eastlake + + 2000 - Avri Doria + + 2001 - Bernard Adoba + + 2002 - Ted T'so + + 2003 - Phil Roberts + + The bulk of the early 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 consistently contributed to the + improvement of the first three versions of this document. + + + + + + + +Galvin Best Current Practice [Page 28] + +RFC 3777 IAB and IESG Selection June 2004 + + + In January 2002, a new working group was formed, the Nominating + Committee Working Group (nomcom), to revise the RFC 2727 version. + This working group was guided by the efforts of a design team whose + members were as follows: + + Bernard Adoba + + Harald Alvestrand - Chair of the IETF + + Leslie Daigle - Chair of the IAB + + Avri Doria - Chair of the Working Group + + James Galvin - Editor of the Document + + Joel Halpern + + Thomas Narten + +10. 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. + + +11. Informative References + + [1] Eastlake, 3rd, D., "Publicly Verifiable Nominations Committee + (Nomcom) Random Selection", RFC 3797, June 2004. + + [2] Galvin, J., "IAB and IESG Selection, Confirmation, and Recall + Process: Operation of the Nominating and Recall Committees", BCP + 10, RFC 2727, February 2000. + + [3] Galvin, J., "IAB and IESG Selection, Confirmation, and Recall + Process: Operation of the Nominating and Recall Committees", BCP + 10, RFC 2282, February 1998. + + + +Galvin Best Current Practice [Page 29] + +RFC 3777 IAB and IESG Selection June 2004 + + +Appendix A. 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. + + 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. + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +Galvin Best Current Practice [Page 30] + +RFC 3777 IAB and IESG Selection June 2004 + + +Appendix B. 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 7 months. + It is expected to start 8 months prior to the First IETF. The 7 + months is split between three major components of the process 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. Three months are allotted for this process. + + 3. Third is the confirmation of the candidates by their respective + confirming bodies. One month is allotted for this process. + + The following figure captures the details of the milestones within + each component. For illustrative purposes the figure presumes the + Friday before the First IETF is March 1. + + 0. BEGIN 8 Months Prior to First IETF (approx. July 1); Internet + Society President appoints the Chair. The appointment must be + done no later than the Second IETF or 8 months prior to the First + IETF, whichever comes first. The Chair must be announced and + recognized during a plenary session of the Second IETF. + + 1. The Chair establishes and announces milestones to ensure the + timely selection of the nominating committee members. + + 2. 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 and IAB open positions and descriptions from the IETF + Executive Director. + + + + +Galvin Best Current Practice [Page 31] + +RFC 3777 IAB and IESG Selection June 2004 + + + 3. 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 7 months and 2 weeks prior to the + First IETF (approx. July 15). + + 4. After the solicitation closes the Chair announces the pool of + volunteers and the date of the random selection, which must be at + least 1 week in the future. The announcement must be done no + later than 6 months and 2 weeks prior to the First IETF (approx. + August 15). + + 5. On the appointed day the random selection occurs and the Chair + announces the members of the committee and the 1 week challenge + period. The announcement must be done no later than 6 months and + 1 week prior to the First IETF (approx. August 22). + + 6. During the challenge period the Chair contacts each of the + committee members and confirms their availability to participate. + + 7. 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 6 months prior to the First IETF (approx. + September 1). + + 8. 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 5 months prior to the First IETF (approx. + October 1). + + 9. END the Committee Member Selection Process; BEGIN the Selection + of Candidates; Time is at least 5 months prior to the First IETF + (approx. October 1). + + 10. 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 5 months prior to the First IETF (approx. + October 1). + + 11. Over the next 3 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 2 months prior to + the First IETF (approx. January 1). + + 12. END the Selection of Candidates; BEGIN the Confirmation of + Candidates; Time is at least 2 months prior to the First IETF + (approx. January 1); + + + +Galvin Best Current Practice [Page 32] + +RFC 3777 IAB and IESG Selection June 2004 + + + 13. The committee presents its candidates to their respective + confirming bodies. The presentation must be done no later than 2 + months prior to the First IETF (approx. January 1). + + 14. The confirming bodies have 1 month to deliberate and, in + communication with the nominating committee, accept or reject + candidates. + + 15. The Chair announces the confirmed candidates. The announcement + must be done no later than 1 month prior to the First IETF + (approx. February 1). + +Author's Address + + James M. Galvin (editor) + eList eXpress LLC + 607 Trixsam Road + Sykesville, MD 21784 + US + + Phone: +1 410-549-4619 + Fax: +1 410-795-7978 + EMail: galvin+ietf@elistx.com + URI: http://www.elistx.com/ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +Galvin Best Current Practice [Page 33] + +RFC 3777 IAB and IESG Selection June 2004 + + +Full Copyright Statement + + Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2004). This document is subject + to the rights, licenses and restrictions contained in BCP 78, and + except as set forth therein, the authors retain all their rights. + + This document and the information contained herein are provided on an + "AS IS" basis and THE CONTRIBUTOR, THE ORGANIZATION HE/SHE REPRESENTS + OR IS SPONSORED BY (IF ANY), THE INTERNET SOCIETY AND THE INTERNET + ENGINEERING TASK FORCE DISCLAIM 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. + +Intellectual Property + + The IETF takes no position regarding the validity or scope of any + Intellectual Property Rights or other rights that might be claimed to + pertain to the implementation or use of the technology described in + this document or the extent to which any license under such rights + might or might not be available; nor does it represent that it has + made any independent effort to identify any such rights. Information + on the procedures with respect to rights in RFC documents can be + found in BCP 78 and BCP 79. + + Copies of IPR disclosures made to the IETF Secretariat and any + assurances of licenses to be made available, or the result of an + attempt made to obtain a general license or permission for the use of + such proprietary rights by implementers or users of this + specification can be obtained from the IETF on-line IPR repository at + http://www.ietf.org/ipr. + + The IETF invites any interested party to bring to its attention any + copyrights, patents or patent applications, or other proprietary + rights that may cover technology that may be required to implement + this standard. Please address the information to the IETF at ietf- + ipr@ietf.org. + +Acknowledgement + + Funding for the RFC Editor function is currently provided by the + Internet Society. + + + + + + + + + +Galvin Best Current Practice [Page 34] + |