RE: NomCom eligibility & IETF 107
Scott Mansfield <scott.mansfield@ericsson.com> Fri, 27 March 2020 12:42 UTC
Return-Path: <scott.mansfield@ericsson.com>
X-Original-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 002DF3A0A1C for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 27 Mar 2020 05:42:11 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.101
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.101 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIMWL_WL_HIGH=-0.001, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=ericsson.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id asv1mOP5Lx7R for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 27 Mar 2020 05:42:10 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from NAM12-MW2-obe.outbound.protection.outlook.com (mail-mw2nam12on2051.outbound.protection.outlook.com [40.107.244.51]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 544CA3A0858 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Fri, 27 Mar 2020 05:42:10 -0700 (PDT)
ARC-Seal: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; s=arcselector9901; d=microsoft.com; cv=none; b=JNNtLJ3DexYSpIS0X1iF1w/KG8p3B4n7ip7kMhA3vYLLpCZtu/vT4jVbVB3Aosa4g0AlwRYuNiCHXUwie6trpDL3z4WSTg9037oDIz0ivDUeTX/O1ckob8fHg5EWe2GMDcaDH3b79+hXFE74kMY2FjDI3uHdKLQcR4gSMni+8RTuzslRYG5AtbJrZD+/cvPgVeJlnVTz8Z6llv36Bz/l63ny6HCGSx+/Fn1fS6pH7waec2cVDTeC3phRFoppRnavVtBPWWVERj68fSnyotoGnc1Ac6eKcKIfmfxI+kFHVvuixybznadPKeXFV/IH5TvZ48t8pyGKTqKvqmbaKRlCtA==
ARC-Message-Signature: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=microsoft.com; s=arcselector9901; h=From:Date:Subject:Message-ID:Content-Type:MIME-Version:X-MS-Exchange-SenderADCheck; bh=XPuZf9GWqOf8dFH6vDYkx+zbdzep0z5rOWrezd7rCvY=; b=FKp8LwiyQ+4eLJe7h7iMT2LMc1ubuT3+njNs1/KkaVDgCjYOYaw9tDhSrbYmD7MjssGbeUUGoOFeCha8/dg7TOfyPa7K1qhe7HqelRrS0BS2iPXcZus+yCmjb9XYwZ97cZDqCL+7Fw8m1sM3GGSQ31D0hXSfUvFPWrntomVulEnTI9llDWppDUpFQA4TkcXjwhxpgj0dkI+fXJeEEFGGS/QQlteadilyK0y7IPG+JY9ARHg5JHy374CRb1nIiCVpc8bovxx5aVX+wUJ0wttP4zTCESQj57zeBLRJzKfv1OQ8DU4J8oBqhi3aGlsIGCAbeyqDkktwTVHPrKQWM/8L9w==
ARC-Authentication-Results: i=1; mx.microsoft.com 1; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=ericsson.com; dmarc=pass action=none header.from=ericsson.com; dkim=pass header.d=ericsson.com; arc=none
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=ericsson.com; s=selector1; h=From:Date:Subject:Message-ID:Content-Type:MIME-Version:X-MS-Exchange-SenderADCheck; bh=XPuZf9GWqOf8dFH6vDYkx+zbdzep0z5rOWrezd7rCvY=; b=hMDqxYU20+xKdacecgabE/vnnmwvfjGM2BxbKgrvboq3ezghHYHxUMwnbVqi9TUwWZ6sOAXkJNoc4nif6Gy5kZiIDx4cS86vCcQiBO2e/AEGxpxmgZ4piod2eL5q0XdpC1KHs6F61y6CwoyM9bh0t80QhLnPBNFKyp5Ta6vJaeI=
Received: from DM5PR15MB1772.namprd15.prod.outlook.com (2603:10b6:4:56::18) by DM5PR15MB1337.namprd15.prod.outlook.com (2603:10b6:3:bb::14) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id 15.20.2835.15; Fri, 27 Mar 2020 12:42:01 +0000
Received: from DM5PR15MB1772.namprd15.prod.outlook.com ([fe80::9548:3d4e:2ab6:225f]) by DM5PR15MB1772.namprd15.prod.outlook.com ([fe80::9548:3d4e:2ab6:225f%6]) with mapi id 15.20.2835.023; Fri, 27 Mar 2020 12:42:01 +0000
From: Scott Mansfield <scott.mansfield@ericsson.com>
To: Lars Eggert <lars@eggert.org>, "Salz, Rich" <rsalz@akamai.com>
CC: Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>, Barry Leiba <barryleiba@computer.org>, IETF discussion list <ietf@ietf.org>
Subject: RE: NomCom eligibility & IETF 107
Thread-Topic: NomCom eligibility & IETF 107
Thread-Index: AQHV+T2HQxfJmTGz0EOIneh7z+9zBahaA6cAgAALMQCAAR+XgIAADlOAgAEtUACAAAFzIA==
Date: Fri, 27 Mar 2020 12:42:01 +0000
Message-ID: <DM5PR15MB1772D9DC0FF7F62B7F6147D88BCC0@DM5PR15MB1772.namprd15.prod.outlook.com>
References: <CALaySJ+kFVXrVAkYLaO6MaPqDA29MzXhVFcxG0c6hZcBs-LqnQ@mail.gmail.com> <CAC4RtVAhfFLYwzqw6Qch3BpuMvqjZPzFJ5o1iTOwR+yqH8j-Aw@mail.gmail.com> <55D8F3C6-7F2A-4382-AFFD-B8A1D7C14992@akamai.com> <28066.1585242203@localhost> <2118E3F9-03DE-4663-B648-7BC95AFEDFC1@akamai.com> <9C9C6A76-DA41-44F1-86FF-CCEA89227732@eggert.org>
In-Reply-To: <9C9C6A76-DA41-44F1-86FF-CCEA89227732@eggert.org>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach: yes
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
authentication-results: spf=none (sender IP is ) smtp.mailfrom=scott.mansfield@ericsson.com;
x-originating-ip: [24.154.234.238]
x-ms-publictraffictype: Email
x-ms-office365-filtering-correlation-id: 2a1090fd-7865-4bfb-353e-08d7d24c3f60
x-ms-traffictypediagnostic: DM5PR15MB1337:
x-microsoft-antispam-prvs: <DM5PR15MB13372B771B54508A9F3CD96A8BCC0@DM5PR15MB1337.namprd15.prod.outlook.com>
x-ms-oob-tlc-oobclassifiers: OLM:9508;
x-forefront-prvs: 0355F3A3AE
x-forefront-antispam-report: SFV:NSPM; SFS:(10009020)(4636009)(39860400002)(396003)(376002)(136003)(346002)(366004)(71200400001)(26005)(66476007)(316002)(66556008)(64756008)(86362001)(44832011)(66446008)(54906003)(66616009)(52536014)(76116006)(4001150100001)(5660300002)(4326008)(33656002)(66946007)(66574012)(8676002)(2906002)(9686003)(55016002)(110136005)(7696005)(8936002)(53546011)(186003)(478600001)(81166006)(81156014)(6506007)(437434002); DIR:OUT; SFP:1101; SCL:1; SRVR:DM5PR15MB1337; H:DM5PR15MB1772.namprd15.prod.outlook.com; FPR:; SPF:None; LANG:en; PTR:InfoNoRecords;
received-spf: None (protection.outlook.com: ericsson.com does not designate permitted sender hosts)
x-ms-exchange-senderadcheck: 1
x-microsoft-antispam: BCL:0;
x-microsoft-antispam-message-info: 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
x-ms-exchange-antispam-messagedata: ColYGL0f8wwGoyHiNgwJyzIxHIVYePwQ3aDWVBJC9rmHS6Pn/YiniZLRkTWFIXv8mYYtjn/ZHGSMPmoq4x/KWaez90MsDAdD9D7MOsOo4fXW2eR6bO/XPhKDg9HKpxk5FMd3HEbYJg8wewddraYTdQ==
x-ms-exchange-transport-forked: True
Content-Type: multipart/signed; protocol="application/x-pkcs7-signature"; micalg="SHA1"; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0096_01D60413.94D93180"
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-OriginatorOrg: ericsson.com
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-Network-Message-Id: 2a1090fd-7865-4bfb-353e-08d7d24c3f60
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-originalarrivaltime: 27 Mar 2020 12:42:01.6272 (UTC)
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-fromentityheader: Hosted
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-id: 92e84ceb-fbfd-47ab-be52-080c6b87953f
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-mailboxtype: HOSTED
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-userprincipalname: OnjCpb0Y5+oOeymdsvZeJ8aRsl1Xq+BYyVmveg0t/X7gTJ8u70X0Lz075zKKJ097ncbaKgImWA5Yo0vKKM4W9I1q3bwjQJqcsx42qrRpFXQ=
X-MS-Exchange-Transport-CrossTenantHeadersStamped: DM5PR15MB1337
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/smvX7W4A16vzJFDeeWOgrUt9rAc>
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <ietf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/ietf/>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 27 Mar 2020 12:42:12 -0000
My two cents... There are many steps to the process related to nomcom participant selection. The chair along with the secretariat along with the tools team leverage all the registration and attendance data present. My experience is that there are multiple places data about past attendance is pulled. This leads to discrepancies in validation of eligibility that requires investigation on a case-by-case basis. In the end the nomcom team gets a list together and sends it to the community for review. During that process, some in the community do take the time to review the list and provide their opinions on the list (kudos to the community!). There are times that the list is missing people, there are times the list has people that are not eligible for various reasons. Once the list is finalized, the randomizer is run and the people on the list are contacted to determine if they are willing to do the job. Keeping in mind that we need to check for disqualifying factors like affiliations (no more than 2 of the same) and/or if the individual has decided to run for leadership. Once the random list is validated, it is sent to the community for yet another review. So the list has to go through another challenge period before the list of volunteers is finalized. My point is... There is a lot of community feedback and transparency to the volunteer selection process. There are multiple chances for challenge and comment. So while I understand the desire to "reward" people that have attended 3 out of the last 5 face-to-face IETFs meeting (because they would be more steeped in the culture I reckon), I find the 3 out of 5 face-to-face meeting issue to be less important (anachronism really) than the "I'm willing to do the job" criteria. As more work is done remotely on email lists, we have seen that people can be effective with remote attendance. I value the face-to-face meetings, but I sense a change (virus notwithstanding) demonstrating the efficacy of hybrid f2f/virtual meetings. That leads me to the conclusion that getting virtual attendance counted for nomcom participation a must. Currently the requirements on a nomcom member are high. It is STRONGLY recommended, that if you are on a nomcom that you attend the Summer meeting and the Fall meeting IN-PERSON and dedicate a serious bulk of your time at the Fall meeting for interviews and discussion. There are eMeetings between Summer and Fall, and if the nomcom doesn't finish, there are eMeetings after the Fall meeting. Each nomcom has its own set of issues. We have had remote participants that do practically nothing, we have had remote participants that perform extremely well. Same can be said for face-to-face participants. It is harder on the face-to-face participants in some ways to include remote participants in the deliberations at a face-to-face meeting, but WE are the INTERNET community and should be able to figure it out. My suggestions: 1) Drop the 3/5 face-to-face requirement for the upcoming nomcom (since we don't really have a process for virtual participation yet) 2) For this upcoming nomcom - take the list of anyone that checked the "nomcom willing" box from any of the past 5 meetings (103 - 107) - and follow the usual process described above. 3) When the call is made for nomcom volunteers, send the criteria/expectations for participation, and the list from step 2 4) Ask the community for feedback on the list as per usual 5) For IETF 108 (and beyond) registration. Keep asking the question if the individual is willing and able to do the nomcom job and start tracking virtual attendance if you really still want to have some kind of 3 out 5 meeting requirement (virtual, hybrid, face-to-face whatever) 6) Rinse, Repeat -scott. -----Original Message----- From: ietf <ietf-bounces@ietf.org> On Behalf Of Lars Eggert Sent: Friday, March 27, 2020 7:53 AM To: Salz, Rich <rsalz=40akamai.com@dmarc.ietf.org> Cc: Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>; Barry Leiba <barryleiba@computer.org>; IETF discussion list <ietf@ietf.org> Subject: Re: NomCom eligibility & IETF 107 Hi, On 2020-3-26, at 19:54, Salz, Rich <rsalz=40akamai.com@dmarc.ietf.org> wrote: > I want to get the largest pool of candidates. so that's a worthwhile goal. But: My guess is that any fine-tuning here would not make a huge difference to the size of the pool of people eligible to be considered as voting members. The pool that we actually want to maximize is the sub-pool of eligible people *who volunteer to be considered*. If we can convince more eligible people to actually volunteer it would have a much more sizable impact (again, a guess.) Anyone got data on #eligible vs. #volunteered? Lars
- NomCom eligibility & IETF 107 Barry Leiba
- Re: NomCom eligibility & IETF 107 Lars Eggert
- RE: NomCom eligibility & IETF 107 Daniele Ceccarelli
- Re: NomCom eligibility & IETF 107 Mary B
- Re: NomCom eligibility & IETF 107 Russ Housley
- Re: NomCom eligibility & IETF 107 Carsten Bormann
- Re: NomCom eligibility & IETF 107 Russ Housley
- Re: NomCom eligibility & IETF 107 Paul Wouters
- Re: NomCom eligibility & IETF 107 Lars Eggert
- Re: NomCom eligibility & IETF 107 Keith Moore
- Re: NomCom eligibility & IETF 107 Eric Rescorla
- Re: NomCom eligibility & IETF 107 Stephen Farrell
- Re: NomCom eligibility & IETF 107 John C Klensin
- Re: NomCom eligibility & IETF 107 Alexandre Petrescu
- Re: NomCom eligibility & IETF 107 Carsten Bormann
- Re: NomCom eligibility & IETF 107 Barry Leiba
- Forced virtual IETF 109 as well as 107 (was: Re: … John C Klensin
- Re: NomCom eligibility & IETF 107 John C Klensin
- Re: NomCom eligibility & IETF 107 Bob Hinden
- Re: NomCom eligibility & IETF 107 John C Klensin
- Re: NomCom eligibility & IETF 107 Lars Eggert
- Re: NomCom eligibility & IETF 107 Paul Hoffman
- Re: NomCom eligibility & IETF 107 Salz, Rich
- Re: NomCom eligibility & IETF 107 Michael Richardson
- Re: NomCom eligibility & IETF 107 Toerless Eckert
- Re: NomCom eligibility & IETF 107 Vittorio Bertola
- Re: NomCom eligibility & IETF 107 Michael StJohns
- Re: NomCom eligibility & IETF 107 John C Klensin
- Re: NomCom eligibility & IETF 107 Randy Bush
- Re: Forced virtual IETF 109 as well as 107 (was: … tom petch
- Re: Forced virtual IETF 109 as well as 107 Alexandre Petrescu
- Re: Forced virtual IETF 109 as well as 107 Brian E Carpenter
- RE: NomCom eligibility & IETF 107 Eric Gray
- Re: NomCom eligibility & IETF 107 Michael Richardson
- Re: Forced virtual IETF 109 as well as 107 Phillip Hallam-Baker
- Re: NomCom eligibility & IETF 107 Job Snijders
- Re: NomCom eligibility & IETF 107 Randy Bush
- Re: NomCom eligibility & IETF 107 Andrew G. Malis
- Re: NomCom eligibility & IETF 107 Keith Moore
- Re: NomCom eligibility & IETF 107 Barry Leiba
- Re: NomCom eligibility & IETF 107 Victor Kuarsingh
- Re: NomCom eligibility & IETF 107 S Moonesamy
- Re: NomCom eligibility & IETF 107 Pete Resnick
- Re: NomCom eligibility & IETF 107 Stewart Bryant
- Re: NomCom eligibility & IETF 107 Stewart Bryant
- Re: NomCom eligibility & IETF 107 Phillip Hallam-Baker
- Re: NomCom eligibility & IETF 107 John C Klensin
- Re: NomCom eligibility & IETF 107 Michael Richardson
- Re: Forced virtual IETF 109 as well as 107 S Moonesamy
- Re: NomCom eligibility & IETF 107 Cullen Jennings
- AW: NomCom eligibility & IETF 107 N.Leymann
- Re: NomCom eligibility & IETF 107 Jay Daley
- Re: NomCom eligibility & IETF 107 Jim Fenton
- Re: NomCom eligibility & IETF 107 Brian E Carpenter
- Re: NomCom eligibility & IETF 107 John C Klensin
- Re: NomCom eligibility & IETF 107 Salz, Rich
- Re: Forced virtual IETF 109 as well as 107 Alexandre Petrescu
- Re: Forced virtual IETF 109 as well as 107 S Moonesamy
- Venue for post-IETF 107 Nomcom eligibility discus… Spencer Dawkins at IETF
- Re: Venue for post-IETF 107 Nomcom eligibility di… Samuel Weiler
- Re: Venue for post-IETF 107 Nomcom eligibility di… Alissa Cooper
- Re: Venue for post-IETF 107 Nomcom eligibility di… Spencer Dawkins at IETF
- Re: NomCom eligibility & IETF 107 Barry Leiba
- Re: NomCom eligibility & IETF 107 Salz, Rich
- Re: NomCom eligibility & IETF 107 Brian E Carpenter
- Re: NomCom eligibility & IETF 107 John C Klensin
- Re: NomCom eligibility & IETF 107 tom petch
- Re: NomCom eligibility & IETF 107 Lou Berger
- Re: NomCom eligibility & IETF 107 Loa Andersson
- Re: NomCom eligibility & IETF 107 Christian Hopps
- Re: NomCom eligibility & IETF 107 Spencer Dawkins at IETF
- Re: NomCom eligibility & IETF 107 Salz, Rich
- Re: NomCom eligibility & IETF 107 John C Klensin
- Re: NomCom eligibility & IETF 107 Bob Hinden
- Re: NomCom eligibility & IETF 107 Salz, Rich
- Re: NomCom eligibility & IETF 107 John C Klensin
- Re: NomCom eligibility & IETF 107 Barry Leiba
- Re: NomCom eligibility & IETF 107 Spencer Dawkins at IETF
- Re: NomCom eligibility & IETF 107 Michael Richardson
- Re: NomCom eligibility & IETF 107 Salz, Rich
- Re: NomCom eligibility & IETF 107 Michael StJohns
- Re: NomCom eligibility & IETF 107 Salz, Rich
- Re: NomCom eligibility & IETF 107 Pete Resnick
- Re: NomCom eligibility & IETF 107 Donald Eastlake
- Re: NomCom eligibility & IETF 107 Spencer Dawkins at IETF
- Re: NomCom eligibility & IETF 107 Jared Mauch
- Re: NomCom eligibility & IETF 107 Stewart Bryant
- Re: NomCom eligibility & IETF 107 Pete Resnick
- Re: NomCom eligibility & IETF 107 Lars Eggert
- RE: NomCom eligibility & IETF 107 Scott Mansfield
- Re: NomCom eligibility & IETF 107 Salz, Rich
- Re: NomCom eligibility & IETF 107 Michael Richardson
- Re: NomCom eligibility & IETF 107 Abdussalam Baryun
- Re: NomCom eligibility & IETF 107 Barry Leiba
- Re: NomCom eligibility & IETF 107 Pete Resnick
- Re: NomCom eligibility & IETF 107 Keith Moore
- Re: NomCom eligibility & IETF 107 Nico Williams
- Re: NomCom eligibility & IETF 107 Pete Resnick
- Re: NomCom eligibility & IETF 107 Nico Williams
- Re: NomCom eligibility & IETF 107 Salz, Rich
- Re: NomCom eligibility & IETF 107 Behcet Sarikaya
- Re: NomCom eligibility & IETF 107 Keith Moore
- Re: NomCom eligibility & IETF 107 Alissa Cooper
- Re: NomCom eligibility & IETF 107 Yoav Nir
- Re: NomCom eligibility & IETF 107 Michael StJohns
- Re: NomCom eligibility & IETF 107 Richard Barnes
- Re: NomCom eligibility & IETF 107 Victor Kuarsingh
- Re: NomCom eligibility & IETF 107 Pete Resnick
- Re: NomCom eligibility & IETF 107 Pete Resnick
- Re: NomCom eligibility & IETF 107 Nico Williams
- Re: NomCom eligibility & IETF 107 Barry Leiba
- Re: NomCom eligibility & IETF 107 Nico Williams
- Re: NomCom eligibility & IETF 107 Salz, Rich
- Re: NomCom eligibility & IETF 107 Barry Leiba
- Re: NomCom eligibility & IETF 107 Robert Elz
- Re: NomCom eligibility & IETF 107 Victor Kuarsingh
- Re: NomCom eligibility & IETF 107 Brian E Carpenter
- Re: NomCom eligibility & IETF 107 Spencer Dawkins at IETF
- Re: NomCom eligibility & IETF 107 Barry Leiba
- Re: NomCom eligibility & IETF 107 Michael Richardson
- Re: NomCom eligibility & IETF 107 Barry Leiba
- Re: NomCom eligibility & IETF 107 Joel Halpern
- Re: NomCom eligibility & IETF 107 Salz, Rich
- Re: NomCom eligibility & IETF 107 Salz, Rich
- Re: NomCom eligibility & IETF 107 Behcet Sarikaya
- Re: NomCom eligibility & IETF 107 Keith Moore
- Re: NomCom eligibility & IETF 107 Nico Williams
- Re: NomCom eligibility & IETF 107 Pete Resnick
- Re: NomCom eligibility & IETF 107 Barry Leiba
- Re: NomCom eligibility & IETF 107 Barry Leiba
- Re: NomCom eligibility & IETF 107 Bob Hinden
- Re: NomCom eligibility & IETF 107 Pete Resnick
- Re: NomCom eligibility & IETF 107 Barry Leiba
- Re: NomCom eligibility & IETF 107 John Levine
- Re: NomCom eligibility & IETF 107 Pete Resnick
- Re: NomCom eligibility & IETF 107 Brian E Carpenter
- Re: NomCom eligibility & IETF 107 Nico Williams
- Re: NomCom eligibility & IETF 107 Abdussalam Baryun
- Re: NomCom eligibility & IETF 107 John C Klensin