Re: [secdir] secdir review of draft-kucherawy-rfc3777bis
Barry Leiba <barryleiba@computer.org> Wed, 29 October 2014 15:45 UTC
Return-Path: <barryleiba@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: secdir@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: secdir@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DDE3C1A1A45 for <secdir@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 29 Oct 2014 08:45:20 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.267
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.267 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, GB_I_INVITATION=-2, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_FILL_THIS_FORM_SHORT=0.01] autolearn=ham
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 EiFeHNwWUqLs for <secdir@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 29 Oct 2014 08:44:53 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-lb0-x233.google.com (mail-lb0-x233.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4010:c04::233]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 81C991A19FC for <secdir@ietf.org>; Wed, 29 Oct 2014 08:44:38 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-lb0-f179.google.com with SMTP id w7so2687731lbi.24 for <secdir@ietf.org>; Wed, 29 Oct 2014 08:44:36 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject :from:to:cc:content-type; bh=rvRHO7FHzmPaUMfjQLk4krpLQ/Qx90tody8X4BR+WzE=; b=S5VnBpkB85/gRjEkPjHiBoh5nw/ZfAEg/2FE0owqf553bd1cKZwht0uKJ69Lhkzu5O ykzp9eBpa9fGbXZkvVhktHqup13pOLlCl2iBv5elEdoU11aOqtmGHGJZP1VCdmQ5WsKT uDM5DaJ/PKkuDFurZbDvZULEFth15RmofEmUAoZRo+9j6cQ07Y1+OvqExn2du4XDoHhj r4FD1BRN8cM/4+y9mZwbWWITpcsG/f/wrf4fwa/xtQQ3QANSxFaUH4CM2so0lSOdVR/o J0zr6Vegl/HDGYASiJFsyW9TZVZu+tMjx9fS5aFB/ud26wjGsEnP6QthNf92KFmMaH6R 57Ew==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.112.170.131 with SMTP id am3mr3864370lbc.97.1414597476198; Wed, 29 Oct 2014 08:44:36 -0700 (PDT)
Sender: barryleiba@gmail.com
Received: by 10.152.8.103 with HTTP; Wed, 29 Oct 2014 08:44:36 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <CAHw9_i++j9p6RNYgHb+Vyh2yDUiCs==8=EStTyCb9Ly7h6EU3Q@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAHw9_i++j9p6RNYgHb+Vyh2yDUiCs==8=EStTyCb9Ly7h6EU3Q@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 29 Oct 2014 11:44:36 -0400
X-Google-Sender-Auth: M1-Snx7ho3iRdpngVinVjk7qRVQ
Message-ID: <CALaySJJVd1ZSSZt=Q3MBPr8WAJu7Y+pGF0=QVi-8T7FFq0zU=A@mail.gmail.com>
From: Barry Leiba <barryleiba@computer.org>
To: Warren Kumari <warren@kumari.net>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="001a11c36af011b261050691a487"
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/secdir/FrdiZ4UzLJxYJv_nMwP0zkobFIM
Cc: "draft-kucherawy-rfc3777bis.all@tools.ietf.org" <draft-kucherawy-rfc3777bis.all@tools.ietf.org>, "secdir@ietf.org" <secdir@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [secdir] secdir review of draft-kucherawy-rfc3777bis
X-BeenThere: secdir@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: Security Area Directorate <secdir.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/secdir>, <mailto:secdir-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/secdir/>
List-Post: <mailto:secdir@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:secdir-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/secdir>, <mailto:secdir-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 29 Oct 2014 15:45:21 -0000
Thanks for the review, Warren. You're probably right that the deletion stuff should be added to an update of 3777, but that isn't this: this is *purely*'to fold in updates and make a consolidated version, and all other changes are out of scope for this round. Murray has volunteered to do a subsequent update if there's consensus to make other changes... later. Barry On Wednesday, October 29, 2014, Warren Kumari <warren@kumari.net> wrote: > Summary: Ready with nits. > > Be ye not afraid.... > > I have reviewed this document as part of the security directorate's > ongoing effort to review all IETF documents being processed by the > IESG. These comments were written primarily for the benefit of the > security area directors. Document editors and WG chairs should treat > these comments just like any other last call comments. > > > This document merges in updates and changes to RFC 3777. The Security > Considerations section seems correct. Having recently suffered through > a nomcom procedure for another organization, I think there is > something missing from the security considerations -- discussions on > deletion of personal information about the candidates after the > process ends. > In section 3.6 the document says: "All deliberations and supporting > information that relates to specific nominees, candidates, and > confirmed candidates are confidential." - but, nomcom members are > likely to be exposed to this info, and are likely to have supporting > info / notes on their laptops. Something like: "At the end of the > process all nomcom members should delete confidential material that > they have copies of" or something. There is an archives section in the > draft, but there is a big difference between an archive and Bob's > resume on my personal machine. > > Other than that I just have a bunch of bikeshed type nits, included > below (in [O], [P], [R] format). > > W > > > > > Network Working Group M. Kucherawy, Ed. > Internet-Draft September 15, 2014 > Obsoletes: 3777, 5078, 5633, 5680, 6859 > (if approved) > Intended status: BCP > Expires: March 19, 2015 > > > IAB, IESG, and IAOC Selection, Confirmation, and Recall Process: > Operation of the Nominating and Recall Committees > -01 > > Abstract > > The process by which the members of the IAB and IESG, and some > members of the IAOC, are selected, confirmed, and recalled is > specified in this document. This document is a self-consistent, > organized compilation of the process as it was known at the time of > publication of [RFC3777], with various updates since that version was > published. > > Status of This Memo > > This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the > provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79. > > Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering > Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute > working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet- > Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/. > > Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months > and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any > time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference > material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." > > This Internet-Draft will expire on March 19, 2015. > > Copyright Notice > > Copyright (c) 2014 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the > document authors. All rights reserved. > > This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal > Provisions Relating to IETF Documents > (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of > publication of this document. Please review these documents > carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect > > > > Kucherawy Expires March 19, 2015 [Page 1] > > Internet-Draft NomCom September 2014 > > > to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must > include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of > the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as > described in the Simplified BSD License. > > Table of Contents > > 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 > 2. Definitions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 > 3. General . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 > 3.1. Completion Due . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 > 3.2. Nominating Committee Principal Functions . . . . . . . . . 6 > 3.3. Positions To Be Reviewed . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 > 3.4. Term Lengths . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 > 3.5. Mid-Term Vacancies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 > 3.6. Confidentiality . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 > 3.7. Advice and Consent Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 > 3.8. Sitting Members . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 > 3.9. Announcements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 > 4. Nominating Committee Selection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 > 4.1. Timeline . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 > 4.2. Term . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 > 4.3. Structure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 > 4.4. Chair Duties . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 > 4.5. Chair Selection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 > 4.6. Temporary Chair . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 > 4.7. Liaisons . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 > 4.8. Liaison Appointment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 > 4.9. Advisors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 > 4.10. Past Chair . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 > 4.11. Voting Volunteers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 > 4.12. Milestones . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 > 4.13. Open Positions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 > 4.14. Volunteer Qualification . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 > 4.15. Not Qualified . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 > 4.16. Selection Process . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 > 4.17. Announcement of Selection Results . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 > 4.18. Committee Organization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 > 5. Nominating Committee Operation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 > 5.1. Discretion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 > 5.2. Selection Timeline . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 > 5.3. Confirmation Timeline . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 > 5.4. Milestones . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 > 5.5. Voting Mechanism . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 > 5.6. Voting Quorum . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 > 5.7. Voting Member Recall . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 > 5.8. Chair Recall . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 > 5.9. Deliberations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 > > > > Kucherawy Expires March 19, 2015 [Page 2] > > Internet-Draft NomCom September 2014 > > > 5.10. Call for Nominees . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 > 5.11. Nominations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 > 5.12. Candidate Selection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 > 5.13. Consent to Nomination . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 > 5.14. Notifying Confirming Bodies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26 > 5.15. Confirming Candidates . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26 > 5.16. Archives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27 > 6. Dispute Resolution Process . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27 > 7. Member Recall . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28 > 7.1. Petition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29 > 7.2. Recall Committee Chair . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29 > 7.3. Recall Committee Creation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29 > 7.4. Recall Committee Rules . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29 > 7.5. Recall Committee Operation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30 > 7.6. 3/4 Majority . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30 > 7.7. Position To Be Filled . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30 > 8. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30 > 9. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30 > 10. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30 > 10.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30 > 10.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31 > Appendix A. Changes Since RFC 3777 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31 > Appendix B. Oral Tradition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31 > Appendix C. Nominating Committee Timeline . . . . . . . . . . . . 32 > Appendix D. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Kucherawy Expires March 19, 2015 [Page 3] > > Internet-Draft NomCom September 2014 > > > 1. Introduction > > This document is a revision of and supercedes BCP 10. It is in > essence a republishing of [RFC3777] and the other RFCs that updated > > [O] It is in essence > [P] It is essentially > > that document into a single specification. The result is a complete > specification of the process by which members of the IAB and IESG, > and some members of the IAOC, are selected, confirmed, and recalled > as of the date of its approval. > [O] IAB and IESG [...] IAOC > [P] Spell out each acronym before use? Can be done here, in Abstract, or > both. > > > Section 4 of [RFC4071] provides further details about the IAOC > positions that are filled by the nominating committee. > > The following two assumptions continue to be true of this > specification: > > 1. The Internet Research Task Force (IRTF) and Internet Research > Steering Group (IRSG) are not a part of the process described > here. > > 2. The organization (and 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 > > [O] time frames > [P] timeframes > > reference. The time frames assume that the IETF meets three times > > [O] time frames > [P] timeframes > > > > 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. > > [O] as needed. > [p] (delete 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 selected. > > Nominating Committee Operation: This is the set of principles, > rules, and constraints that guide the activities of the nominating > committee, including the confirmation process. > > Member Recall: This is the process by which the behavior of a > sitting member of the IAOC, IESG, or IAB may be questioned, > perhaps resulting in the removal of the sitting member. > > > > > Kucherawy Expires March 19, 2015 [Page 4] > > Internet-Draft NomCom September 2014 > > > A final section describes how this document differs from its > predecessor [RFC3777]. > > An appendix of useful facts and practices collected from previous > nominating committees is also included. > > 2. Definitions > > The following words and phrases are commonly used throughout this > document. They are listed here with their intended meaning for the > convenience of the reader. > > candidate: A nominee who has been selected to be considered for > confirmation by a confirming body. > > confirmed candidate: A candidate that has been reviewed and approved > by a confirming body. > > nominating committee term: The term begins when its members are > officially announced, which is expected to be prior to the Third > IETF to ensure it is fully operational at the Third IETF. The > term ends at the Third IETF (not three meetings) after the next > nominating committee's term begins. > > nominee: A person who is being or has been considered for one or > more open positions of the IESG, IAB, or IAOC. > > sitting member: A person who is currently serving a term of > membership in the IESG, IAB, or ISOC Board of Trustees. > > 3. General > > The following set of rules apply to the process as a whole. If > necessary, a paragraph discussing the interpretation of each rule is > included. > > 3.1. Completion Due > > The completion of the annual process is due within seven months. > > The completion of the annual process is due one month prior to the > Friday of the week before the First IETF. It is expected to begin at > least eight months prior to the Friday of the week before the First > IETF. > > The process officially begins with the announcement of the Chair of > the committee. The process officially ends when all confirmed > candidates have been announced. > > > > Kucherawy Expires March 19, 2015 [Page 5] > > Internet-Draft NomCom September 2014 > > > The annual process is comprised of three major components as follows: > > 1. The selection and organization of the nominating committee > members. > > 2. The selection of candidates by the nominating committee. > > 3. The confirmation of the candidates. > > There is an additional month set aside between when the annual > process is expected to end and the term of the new candidates is to > begin. This time may be used during unusual circumstances to extend > the time allocated for any of the components listed above. > > 3.2. Nominating Committee Principal Functions > > The principal functions of the nominating committee are to review > each open IESG, IAB, and IAOC position and to nominate either its > incumbent or a superior candidate. > > Although there is no term limit for serving in any IESG, IAB, or IAOC > position, the nominating committee may use length of service as one > of its criteria for evaluating an incumbent. > > The nominating committee does not select the open positions to be > reviewed; it is instructed as to which positions to review. > > [O] The nominating committee does not select the open positions to be > reviewed; it is instructed as to which positions to review. > [P] This paragraph should move up one paragraph, so that is above the > paragraph beginning "although" > [R] Consistency/flow; paragraph above will then refer to open positions. > > 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. > > [O] 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. > > [P] 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. > > The nominating committee does not confirm its candidates; it presents > > its candidates to the appropriate confirming body as indicated below. > > [R] Changed the order of these two paragraphs for better flow. > > 3.3. Positions To Be Reviewed > > Approximately one-half of each of the then current IESG and IAB > positions, and one IAOC position, is selected to be reviewed each > year. > [O] is selected > [P] are selected > [R] grammar; plural are selected > > > The intent of this rule to ensure the review of approximately one- > > > > Kucherawy Expires March 19, 2015 [Page 6] > > Internet-Draft NomCom September 2014 > > > half of each of the IESG and IAB sitting members, and one of the two > nominated IAOC positions, each year. It is recognized that > circumstances may exist that will require the nominating committee to > review more or less than the usual number of positions, e.g., if the > IESG, IAB, or IAOC have 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. > > 3.4. Term Lengths > > Confirmed candidates are expected to serve at least a two year term. > > The intent of this rule is to ensure that members of the IESG, IAB, > and IAOC serve the number of years that best facilitates the review > of one-half of the members each year. > > The term of a confirmed candidate selected according to the mid-term > vacancy rules may be less than two years, as stated elsewhere in this > document. > > It is consistent with this rule for the nominating committee to > choose one or more of the currently open positions to which it may > assign a term of not more than three years in order to ensure the > ideal application of this rule in the future. > > It is consistent with this rule for the nominating committee to > choose one or more of the currently open positions that share > responsibilities with other positions (both those being reviewed and > those sitting) to which it may assign a term of not more than three > years to ensure that all such members will not be reviewed at the > same time. > > All sitting member terms end during the First IETF meeting > corresponding to the end of the term for which they were confirmed. > All confirmed candidate terms begin during the First IETF meeting > corresponding to the beginning of the term for which they were > confirmed. > > For confirmed candidates of the IESG the terms begin no later than > when the currently sitting members' terms end on the last day of the > meeting. A term may begin or end no sooner than the first day of the > meeting and no later than the last day of the meeting as determined > by the mutual agreement of the currently sitting member and the > confirmed candidate. A confirmed candidate's term may overlap the > sitting member's term during the meeting as determined by their > mutual agreement. > > For confirmed candidates of the IAB and IAOC, the terms overlap with > > > > Kucherawy Expires March 19, 2015 [Page 7] > > Internet-Draft NomCom September 2014 > > > the terms of the sitting members for the entire week of the meeting. > > For candidates confirmed under the mid-term vacancy rules, the term > begins as soon as possible after the confirmation. > > 3.5. Mid-Term Vacancies > > Mid-term vacancies are filled by the same rules as documented here > with four qualifications, namely: > > 1. When there is only one official nominating committee, the body > with the mid-term vacancy relegates the responsibility to fill > the vacancy to it. If the mid-term vacancy occurs during the > period of time that the term of the prior year's nominating > committee overlaps with the term of the current year's nominating > committee, the body with the mid-term vacancy must relegate the > responsibility to fill the vacancy to the prior year's nominating > committee. > > 2. If it is the case that the nominating committee is reconvening to > fill the mid-term vacancy, then the completion of the candidate > selection and confirmation process is due within six weeks, with > all other time periods otherwise unspecified prorated > accordingly. > > [O] If it is the case that the nominating committee > [P] If the nominating committee > [R] Wordy > > 3. The confirming body has two weeks from the day it is notified of > a candidate to reject the candidate, otherwise the candidate is > assumed to have been confirmed. > > 4. The term of the confirmed candidate will be either: > > A. the remainder of the term of the open position if that > remainder is not less than one year; or > > B. the remainder of the term of the open position plus the next > two year term if that remainder is less than one year. > > In both cases a year is the period of time from a First IETF meeting > to the next First IETF meeting. > > 3.6. Confidentiality > > All deliberations and supporting information that relates to specific > nominees, candidates, and confirmed candidates are confidential. > > The nominating committee and confirming body members will be exposed > to confidential information as a result of their deliberations, their > interactions with those they consult, and from those who provide > > > > Kucherawy Expires March 19, 2015 [Page 8] > > Internet-Draft NomCom September 2014 > > > requested supporting information. All members and all other > participants are expected to handle this information in a manner > consistent with its sensitivity. > > It is consistent with this rule for current nominating committee > members who have served on prior nominating committees to advise the > current committee on deliberations and results of the prior > committee, as necessary and appropriate. > > The list of nominees willing to be considered for positions under > review in the current nominating committee cycle is not confidential. > The nominating committee may disclose a list of names of nominees who > are willing to be considered for positions under review to the > community, in order to obtain feedback from the community on these > nominees. > > The list of nominees disclosed for a specific position should contain > only the names of nominees who are willing to be considered for the > position under review. > > The nominating committee may choose not to include some names in the > disclosed list, at their discretion. > > The nominating committee may disclose an updated list, at its > discretion. For example, the nominating committee might disclose an > updated list if it identifies errors/omissions in a previously > disclosed version of the disclosed list, or if the nominating > committee finds it necessary to call for additional nominees, and > these nominees indicate a willingness to be considered before the > nominating committee has completed its deliberations. > > Nominees may choose to ask people to provide feedback to the > nominating committee, but should not encourage any public statements > of support. Nominating committees should consider nominee-encouraged > lobbying and campaigning to be unacceptable behavior. > > IETF community members are encouraged to provide feedback on nominees > to the nominating committee, but should not post statements of > support/non-support for nominees in any public forum. > > 3.7. Advice and Consent Model > > Unless otherwise specified, the advice and consent model is used > throughout the process. This model is characterized as follows. > > > > > > > > Kucherawy Expires March 19, 2015 [Page 9] > > Internet-Draft NomCom September 2014 > > > 3.7.1. Positions To Be Reviewed > > The IETF Executive Director informs the nominating committee of the > IESG, IAB, and IAOC positions to be reviewed. > > The IESG, IAB, and IAOC are responsible for providing summary of the > expertise desired of the candidates selected for their respective > open positions to the Executive Director. The summaries are provided > to the nominating committee for its consideration. > > 3.7.2. Candidate Selection > > The nominating committee selects candidates based on its > understanding of the IETF community's consensus of the qualifications > required and advises each confirming body of its respective > candidates. > > 3.7.3. Candidate Review > > The confirming bodies review their respective candidates, they may at > their discretion communicate with the nominating committee, and then > consent to some, all, or none of the candidates. > > The sitting IAB members review the IESG candidates. > > The Internet Society Board of Trustees reviews the IAB candidates. > > The IAOC candidate is reviewed as specified in [RFC4071]. > > The confirming bodies conduct their review using all information and > any means acceptable to them, including but not limited to the > supporting information provided by the nominating committee, > information known personally to members of the confirming bodies and > shared within the confirming body, the results of interactions within > the confirming bodies, and the confirming bodies interpretation of > what is in the best interests of the IETF community. > > If all of the candidates are confirmed, the job of the nominating > committee with respect to those open positions is complete. > > If some or none of the candidates submitted to a confirming body are > confirmed, the confirming body should communicate with the nominating > committee both to explain the reason why all the candidates were not > confirmed and to understand the nominating committee's rationale for > its candidates. > > The confirming body may reject individual candidates, in which case > the nominating committee must select alternate candidates for the > > > > Kucherawy Expires March 19, 2015 [Page 10] > > Internet-Draft NomCom September 2014 > > > rejected candidates. > > Any additional time required by the nominating committee should not > exceed its maximum time allotment. > > 3.7.4. Confirmation > > A confirming body decides whether it confirms each candidate using a > confirmation decision rule chosen by the confirming body. > > If a confirming body has no specific confirmation decision rule, then > confirming a given candidate should require at least one-half of the > confirming body's sitting members to agree to that confirmation. > > The decision may be made by conducting a formal vote, by asserting > consensus based on informal exchanges (e.g., email), or by any other > mechanism that is used to conduct the normal business of the > confirming body. > > Regardless of which decision rule the confirming body uses, any > candidate that is not confirmed under that rule is considered to be > rejected. > > The confirming body must make its decision within a reasonable time > frame. The results from the confirming body must be reported > promptly to the nominating committee. > > 3.8. Sitting Members > > The following rules apply to nominees candidates who are currently > sitting members of the IESG, IAB, or IAOC, and who are not sitting in > an open position being filled by the nominating committee. > > The confirmation of a candidate to an open position does not > automatically create a vacancy in the IESG, IAB, or IAOC position > currently occupied by the candidate. The mid-term vacancy can not > [O] can not > [P] cannot > [R] grammar > > exist until, first, the candidate formally resigns from the current > position and, second, the body with the vacancy formally decides for > itself that it wants the nominating committee to fill the mid-term > vacancy according to the rules for a mid-term vacancy documented > elsewhere in this document. > > The resignation should be effective as of when the term of the new > position begins. The resignation may remain confidential to the IAB, > IAOC, IESG, and nominating committee until the confirmed candidate is > announced for the new position. The process, according to rules set > out elsewhere in this document, of filling the seat vacated by the > confirmed candidate may begin as soon as the vacancy is publicly > > > > Kucherawy Expires March 19, 2015 [Page 11] > > Internet-Draft NomCom September 2014 > > > announced. > > Filling a mid-term vacancy is a separate and independent action from > the customary action of filling open positions. In particular, a > nominating committee must complete its job with respect to filling > the open positions and then separately proceed with the task of > filling the mid-term vacancy according to the rules for a mid-term > vacancy documented elsewhere in this document. > > However, the following exception is permitted in the case where the > candidate for an open position is currently a sitting member of the > IAB. It is consistent with these rules for the announcements of a > resignation of a sitting member of the IAB and of the confirmed > candidate for the mid-term vacancy created by that sitting member on > the IAB to all occur at the same time as long as the actual sequence > of events that occurred did so in the following order: > > 1. The nominating committee completes the advice and consent process > for the open position being filled by the candidate currently > sitting on the IAB. > > 2. The newly confirmed candidate resigns from their current position > on the IAB. > > 3. The IAB with the new mid-term vacancy requests that the > nominating committee fill the position. > > 4. The Executive Director of the IETF informs the nominating > committee of the mid-term vacancy. > > 5. The nominating committee acts on the request to fill the mid-term > vacancy. > > 3.9. Announcements > > All announcements must be made using at least the mechanism used by > the IETF Secretariat for its announcements, including a notice on the > IETF web site. > > As of the publication of this document, the current mechanism is an > email message to both the "ietf" and the "ietf-announce" mailing > lists. > > 4. Nominating Committee Selection > > The following set of rules apply to the creation of the nominating > committee and the selection of its members. > > > > > Kucherawy Expires March 19, 2015 [Page 12] > > Internet-Draft NomCom September 2014 > > > 4.1. Timeline > > The completion of the process of selecting and organizing the members > of the nominating committee is due within three months. > > The completion of the selection and organization process is due at > least one month prior to the Third IETF. This ensures the nominating > committee is fully operational and available for interviews and > consultation during the Third IETF. > > 4.2. Term > > The term of a nominating committee is expected to be 15 months. > > It is the intent of this rule that the end of a nominating > committee's term overlap by approximately three months the beginning > of the term of the next nominating committee. > > The term of a nominating committee begins when its members are > officially announced. The term ends at the Third IETF (not three > meetings), i.e., the IETF meeting after the next nominating > committee's term begins. > > A term is expected to begin at least two months prior to the Third > IETF to ensure the nominating committee has at least one month to get > organized before preparing for the Third IETF. > > 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. > [O] At all times other than the overlap period there is exactly one > official > [P] At all times other than the overlap period, there is exactly one > official > [R] comma added for readability > > 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. > > [O] nominating committee the coordination > [P] nominating committee, the coordination > [R] comma added for readability > > > > > > > Kucherawy Expires March 19, 2015 [Page 13] > > Internet-Draft NomCom September 2014 > > > 4.3. Structure > > The nominating committee comprises at least a Chair, 10 voting > volunteers, four liaisons, and an advisor. > [O] comprises at least > [P] comprises of at leat > > > 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, IAB, and IAOC 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. > > 4.4. Chair Duties > > The Chair of the nominating committee is responsible for ensuring the > nominating committee completes its assigned duties in a timely > fashion and performs in the best interests of the IETF community. > > The Chair must be thoroughly familiar with the rules and guidance > indicated throughout this document. The Chair must ensure the > nominating committee completes its assigned duties in a manner that > is consistent with this document. > > The Chair must attest by proclamation at a plenary session of the > First IETF that the results of the committee represent its best > > > > Kucherawy Expires March 19, 2015 [Page 14] > > Internet-Draft NomCom September 2014 > > > effort and the best interests of the IETF community. > > The Chair does not vote on the selection of candidates. > > 4.5. Chair Selection > > The Internet Society President appoints the Chair, who must meet the > same requirements for membership in the nominating committee as a > voting volunteer. > > The nominating committee Chair must agree to invest the time > necessary to ensure that the nominating committee completes its > assigned duties and to perform in the best interests of the IETF > community in that role. > > The appointment is due no later than the Second IETF meeting to > ensure it can be announced during a plenary session at that meeting. > The completion of the appointment is necessary to ensure the annual > process can complete at the time specified elsewhere in this > document. > > 4.6. Temporary Chair > > A Chair, in consultation with the Internet Society President, may > appoint a temporary substitute for the Chair position. > > There are a variety of ordinary circumstances that may arise from > time to time that could result in a Chair being unavailable to > oversee the activities of the committee. The Chair, in consultation > with the Internet Society President, may appoint a substitute from a > pool comprised of the liaisons currently serving on the committee and > the prior year's Chair or designee. > > Any such appointment must be temporary and does not absolve the Chair > of any or all responsibility for ensuring the nominating committee > completes its assigned duties in a timely fashion. > > 4.7. Liaisons > > Liaisons are responsible for ensuring the nominating committee in > general and the Chair in particular execute their assigned duties in > the best interests of the IETF community. > > Liaisons are expected to represent the views of their respective > organizations during the deliberations of the committee. They should > provide information as requested or when they believe it would be > helpful to the committee. > > > > > Kucherawy Expires March 19, 2015 [Page 15] > > Internet-Draft NomCom September 2014 > > > Liaisons from the IESG, IAB, and IAOC 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, IAOC, and Internet Society Board of > Trustees (if one was appointed) are expected to review the operation > and executing process of the nominating committee and to report any > concerns or issues to the Chair of the nominating committee > immediately. If they can not resolve the issue between themselves, > liaisons must report it according to the dispute resolution process > stated elsewhere in this document. > > [O] can not > [P] cannot > > > > > 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. > > 4.8. Liaison Appointment > > The sitting IAOC, IAB, and IESG members each appoint a liaison from > their current membership, someone who is not sitting in an open > position, to serve on the nominating committee. > > 4.9. Advisors > > An advisor is responsible for such duties as specified by the > invitation that resulted in the appointment. > > Advisors do not vote on the selection of candidates. > > 4.10. Past Chair > > The Chair of the prior year's nominating committee serves as an > advisor to the current committee. > > The prior year's Chair is expected to review the actions and > activities of the current Chair and to report any concerns or issues > to the nominating committee Chair immediately. If they can not > [O] can not > [O] cannot > > > Kucherawy Expires March 19, 2015 [Page 16] > > Internet-Draft NomCom September 2014 > > > resolve the issue between themselves, the prior year's Chair must > report it according to the dispute resolution process stated > elsewhere in this document. > > The prior year's Chair may select a designee from a pool composed of > the voting volunteers of the prior year's committee and all prior > Chairs if the Chair is unavailable. If the prior year's Chair is > unavailable or is unable or unwilling to make such a designation in a > timely fashion, the Chair of the current year's committee may select > a designee in consultation with the Internet Society President. > > Selecting a prior year's committee member as the designee permits the > experience of the prior year's deliberations to be readily available > to the current committee. Selecting an earlier prior year Chair as > the designee permits the experience of being a Chair as well as that > Chair's committee deliberations to be readily available to the > current committee. > > All references to "prior year's Chair" in this document refer to the > person serving in that role, whether it is the actual prior year's > Chair or a designee. > > 4.11. Voting Volunteers > > Voting volunteers are responsible for completing the tasks of the > nominating committee in a timely fashion. > > Each voting volunteer is expected to participate in all activities of > the nominating committee with a level of effort approximately equal > to all other voting volunteers. Specific tasks to be completed are > established and managed by the Chair according to rules stated > elsewhere in this document. > > 4.12. Milestones > > The Chair must establish and announce milestones for the selection of > the nominating committee members. > > There is a defined time period during which the selection process is > due to be completed. The Chair must establish a set of milestones > which, if met in a timely fashion, will result in the completion of > the process on time. > > 4.13. Open Positions > > The Chair (or the IETF Executive Director, if no Chair has been named > four weeks after the first IETF meeting of the year) obtains the list > of positions to be reviewed and announces it along with a > > > > Kucherawy Expires March 19, 2015 [Page 17] > > Internet-Draft NomCom September 2014 > > > solicitation for names of volunteers from the IETF community willing > to serve on the nominating committee. > > If the IETF Executive Director issues the solicitation for > volunteers, the IETF Executive Director must also collect responses > to the solicitation and provide the names of volunteers to the > incoming nominating committee Chair when the incoming nominating > committee Chair is named. > > At the Chair's request, the IETF Secretariat may perform other > clerical support tasks, as long as the task being performed does not > require nominating committee Chair judgment, in the nominating > committee Chair's opinion, and as long as the community is > appropriately notified that this request is being made. This request > may come from the incoming nominating committee Chair (if one has > been selected for this nominating committee cycle) or the previous > nominating committee Chair (if the search for an incoming nominating > committee Chair is still underway). > > The solicitation must permit the community at least 30 days during > which they may choose to volunteer to be selected for the nominating > committee. > > The list of open positions is published with the solicitation to > facilitate community members choosing between volunteering for an > open position and volunteering for the nominating committee. > > 4.14. Volunteer Qualification > > Members of the IETF community must have attended at least three of > the last five IETF meetings in order to volunteer. > > The five meetings are the five most recent meetings that ended prior > to the date on which the solicitation for nominating committee > volunteers was submitted for distribution to the IETF community. > > The IETF Secretariat is responsible for confirming that volunteers > have met the attendance requirement. > > Volunteers must provide their full name, email address, and primary > company or organization affiliation (if any) when volunteering. > > Volunteers are expected to be familiar with the IETF processes and > procedures, which are readily learned by active participation in a > working group and especially by serving as a document editor or > working group chair. > > > > > > Kucherawy Expires March 19, 2015 [Page 18] > > Internet-Draft NomCom September 2014 > > > 4.15. Not Qualified > > Any person who serves on any of the Internet Society Board of > Trustees, the IAB, the IESG, or the IAOC, including those who serve > on these bodies in ex officio positions, may not volunteer to serve > as voting members of the nominating committee. Liaisons to these > bodies from other bodies or organizations are not excluded by this > rule. > > 4.16. Selection Process > > The Chair announces both the list of the pool of volunteers from > which the 10 voting volunteers will be randomly selected and the > method with which the selection will be completed. > > The announcement should be made at least one week prior to the date > on which the random selection will occur. > > The pool of volunteers must be enumerated or otherwise indicated > according to the needs of the selection method to be used. > > The announcement must specify the data that will be used as input to > the selection method. The method must depend on random data whose > value is not known or available until the date on which the random > selection will occur. > > It must be possible to independently verify that the selection method > used is both fair and unbiased. A method is fair if each eligible > volunteer is equally likely to be selected. A method is unbiased if > no one can influence its outcome in favor of a specific outcome. > > It must be possible to repeat the selection method, either through > iteration or by restarting in such a way as to remain fair and > unbiased. This is necessary to replace selected volunteers should > they become unavailable after selection. > > The selection method must produce an ordered list of volunteers. > > One possible selection method is described in [RFC3797]. > > 4.17. Announcement of Selection Results > > The Chair randomly selects the 10 voting volunteers from the pool of > names of volunteers and announces the members of the nominating > committee. > > No more than two volunteers with the same primary affiliation may be > selected for the nominating committee. The Chair reviews the primary > > > > Kucherawy Expires March 19, 2015 [Page 19] > > Internet-Draft NomCom September 2014 > > > affiliation of each volunteer selected by the method in turn. If the > primary affiliation for a volunteer is the same as two previously > selected volunteers, that volunteer is removed from consideration and > the method is repeated to identify the next eligible volunteer. > > There must be at least two announcements of all members of the > nominating committee. > > The first announcement should occur as soon after the random > selection as is reasonable for the Chair. The community must have at > least one week during which any member may challenge the results of > the random selection. > > The challenge must be made in writing (email is acceptable) to the > Chair. The Chair has 48 hours to review the challenge and offer a > resolution to the member. If the resolution is not accepted by the > member, that member may report the challenge according to the dispute > resolution process stated elsewhere in this document. > > If a selected volunteer, upon reading the announcement with the list > of selected volunteers, finds that two or more other volunteers have > the same affiliation, then the volunteer should notify the Chair who > will determine the appropriate action. > > During at least the one week challenge period the Chair must contact > each of the members and confirm their willingness and availability to > serve. The Chair should make every reasonable effort to contact each > member. > > [O] challenge period the Chair > [P] challenge period, the Chair > [R] readability > > o If the Chair is unable to contact a liaison the problem is > referred to the respective organization to resolve. The Chair > should allow a reasonable amount of time for the organization to > resolve the problem and then may proceed without the liaison. > > [O] liaison the problem > [P] liaison, the problem > [R] readability > > > o If the Chair is unable to contact an advisor the Chair may elect > to proceed without the advisor, except for the prior year's Chair > for whom the Chair must consult with the Internet Society > President as stated elsewhere in this document. > [O] an advisor the Chair > [P] an advisor, the Chair > [R] readability > > > o If the Chair is unable to contact a voting volunteer the Chair > must repeat the random selection process in order to replace the > unavailable volunteer. There should be at least one day between > the announcement of the iteration and the selection process. > > [O] volunteer the Chair > [P] volunteer, the Chair > [R] readability > > > After at least one week and confirming that 10 voting volunteers are > ready to serve, the Chair makes the second announcement of the > members of the nominating committee, which officially begins the term > of the nominating committee. > > > > Kucherawy Expires March 19, 2015 [Page 20] > > Internet-Draft NomCom September 2014 > > > 4.18. Committee Organization > > The Chair works with the members of the committee to organize itself > in preparation for completing its assigned duties. > > The committee has approximately one month during which it can self- > organize. Its responsibilities during this time include but are not > limited to the following: > > o Setting up a regular teleconference schedule. > > o Setting up an internal web site. > > o Setting up a mailing list for internal discussions. > > o Setting up an email address for receiving community input. > > o Establishing operational procedures. > > o Establishing milestones in order to monitor the progress of the > selection process. > > 5. Nominating Committee Operation > > The following rules apply to the operation of the nominating > committee. If necessary, a paragraph discussing the interpretation > of each rule is included. > > The rules are organized approximately in the order in which they > would be invoked. > > 5.1. Discretion > > All rules and special circumstances not otherwise specified are at > the discretion of the committee. > > Exceptional circumstances will occasionally arise during the normal > operation of the nominating committee. This rule is intended to > foster the continued forward progress of the committee. > > Any member of the committee may propose a rule for adoption by the > committee. The rule must be approved by the committee according to > its established voting mechanism. > > All members of the committee should consider whether the exception is > worthy of mention in the next revision of this document and follow-up > accordingly. > > > > > Kucherawy Expires March 19, 2015 [Page 21] > > Internet-Draft NomCom September 2014 > > > 5.2. Selection Timeline > > The completion of the process of selecting candidates to be confirmed > by their respective confirming body is due within three months. > > The completion of the selection process is due at least two month's > > [O] two month's > [P] two months > [R] plural, not possessive > > prior to the First IETF. This ensures the nominating committee has > sufficient time to complete the confirmation process. > > 5.3. Confirmation Timeline > > The completion of the process of confirming the candidates is due > within one month. > > The completion of the confirmation process is due at least one month > prior to the First IETF. > > 5.4. Milestones > > The Chair must establish 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. > > 5.5. Voting Mechanism > > The Chair must establish a voting mechanism. > > The committee must be able to objectively determine when a decision > has been made during its deliberations. The criteria for determining > closure must be established and known to all members of the > nominating committee. > > 5.6. Voting Quorum > > At least a quorum of committee members must participate in a vote. > > Only voting volunteers vote on a candidate selection. For a > candidate selection vote a quorum is comprised of at least seven of > the voting volunteers. > > > > Kucherawy Expires March 19, 2015 [Page 22] > > Internet-Draft NomCom September 2014 > > > At all other times a quorum is present if at least 75% of the > nominating committee members are participating. > > 5.7. Voting Member Recall > > Any member of the nominating committee may propose to the committee > that any other member except the Chair be recalled. The process for > recalling the Chair is defined elsewhere in this document. > > There are a variety of ordinary circumstances that may arise that > could result in one or more members of the committee being > unavailable to complete their assigned duties, for example health > concerns, family issues, or a change of priorities at work. A > committee member may choose to resign for unspecified personal > reasons. In addition, the committee may not function well as a group > because a member may be disruptive or otherwise uncooperative. > > Regardless of the circumstances, if individual committee members can > not work out their differences between themselves, the entire > committee may be called upon to discuss and review the circumstances. > If a resolution is not forthcoming a vote may be conducted. A member > may be recalled if at least a quorum of all committee members agree, > including the vote of the member being recalled. > > [O] forthcoming a vote > [P] forthcoming, a vote > [R] Grammar > > > If a liaison member is recalled the committee must notify the > affected organization and must allow a reasonable amount of time for > [O] recalled the committee > [P] recalled, the committee > [R] Grammar > > If an advisor member other than the prior year's Chair is recalled, > the committee may choose to proceed without the advisor. In the case > of the prior year's Chair, the Internet Society President must be > notified and the current Chair must be allowed a reasonable amount of > time to consult with the Internet Society President to identify a > replacement before proceeding. > > If a single voting volunteer position on the nominating committee is > vacated, regardless of the circumstances, the committee may choose to > proceed with only nine voting volunteers at its own discretion. In > all other cases a new voting member must be selected, and the Chair > must repeat the random selection process including an announcement of > the iteration prior to the actual selection as stated elsewhere in > this document. > > A change in the primary affiliation of a voting volunteer during the > term of the nominating committee is not a cause to request the recall > of that volunteer, even if the change would result in more than two > voting volunteers with the same affiliation. > > > > > Kucherawy Expires March 19, 2015 [Page 23] > > Internet-Draft NomCom September 2014 > > > 5.8. Chair Recall > > Only the prior year's Chair may request the recall of the current > Chair. > > It is the responsibility of the prior year's Chair to ensure the > current Chair completes the assigned tasks in a manner consistent > with this document and in the best interests of the IETF community. > > Any member of the committee who has an issue or concern regarding the > Chair should report it to the prior year's Chair immediately. The > prior year's Chair is expected to report it to the Chair immediately. > If they can not resolve the issue between themselves, the prior > year's Chair must report it according to the dispute resolution > process stated elsewhere in this document. > [O] can not > [P] cannot > > 5.9. Deliberations > > All members of the nominating committee may participate in all > deliberations. > > The emphasis of this rule is that no member can be explicitly > excluded from any deliberation. However, a member may individually > choose not to participate in a deliberation. > > 5.10. Call for Nominees > > The Chair announces the open positions to be reviewed, the desired > expertise provided by the IETF Executive Director, and the call for > nominees. > > The call for nominees must include a request for comments regarding > the past performance of incumbents, which will be considered during > the deliberations of the nominating committee. > > The call must request that a nomination include a valid, working > email address, a telephone number, or both for the nominee. The > nomination must include the set of skills or expertise the nominator > believes the nominee has that would be desirable. > > 5.11. Nominations > > Any member of the IETF community may nominate any member of the IETF > community for any open position, whose eligibility to serve will be > confirmed by the nominating committee. > > A self-nomination is permitted. > > > > > Kucherawy Expires March 19, 2015 [Page 24] > > Internet-Draft NomCom September 2014 > > > Nominating committee members are not eligible to be considered for > filling any open position by the nominating committee on which they > serve. They become ineligible as soon as the term of the nominating > committee on which they serve officially begins. They remain > ineligible for the duration of that nominating committee's term. > > Although each nominating committee's term overlaps with the following > nominating committee's term, nominating committee members are > eligible for nomination by the following committee if not otherwise > disqualified. > > Members of the IETF community who were recalled from any IESG, IAB, > or IAOC position during the previous two years are not eligible to be > considered for filling any open position. > > 5.12. Candidate Selection > > The nominating committee selects candidates based on its > understanding of the IETF community's consensus of the qualifications > required to fill the open positions. > > The intent of this rule is to ensure that the nominating committee > consults with a broad base of the IETF community for input to its > deliberations. In particular, the nominating committee must > determine if the desired expertise for the open positions matches its > understanding of the qualifications desired by the IETF community. > > The consultations are permitted to include names of nominees, if all > parties to the consultation agree to observe the same confidentiality > rules as the nominating committee itself, or the names are public as > discussed in Section 3.6. Feedback on individual nominees should > always be confidential. > > A broad base of the community should include the existing members of > the IAB, IAOC, and IESG, especially sitting members who share > responsibilities with open positions, e.g., co-Area Directors, and > working group chairs, especially those in the areas with open > positions. > > Only voting volunteer members vote to select candidates. > > 5.13. Consent to Nomination > > Nominees should be advised that they are being considered and must > consent to their nomination prior to being chosen as candidates. > > Although the nominating committee will make every reasonable effort > to contact and to remain in contact with nominees, any nominee whose > > > > Kucherawy Expires March 19, 2015 [Page 25] > > Internet-Draft NomCom September 2014 > > > contact information changes during the process and who wishes to > still be considered should inform the nominating committee of the > changes. > > A nominee's consent must be written (email is acceptable) and must > include a commitment to provide the resources necessary to fill the > open position and an assurance that the nominee will perform the > duties of the position for which they are being considered in the > best interests of the IETF community. > > Consenting to a nomination must occur prior to a nominee being a > candidate and may occur as soon after the nomination as needed by the > nominating committee. > > Consenting to a nomination must not imply the nominee will be a > candidate. > > The nominating committee should help nominees provide justification > to their employers. > > 5.14. Notifying Confirming Bodies > > The nominating committee advises the confirming bodies of their > candidates, specifying a single candidate for each open position and > testifying as to how each candidate meets the qualifications of an > open position. > > For each candidate, the testimony must include a brief statement of > the qualifications for the position that is being filled, which may > be exactly the expertise that was requested. If the qualifications > differ from the expertise originally requested a brief statement > explaining the difference must be included. > [O] requested a brief > [P] requested, a brief > [R] grammar > > 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. > > 5.15. Confirming Candidates > > Confirmed candidates must consent to their confirmation and rejected > candidates and nominees must be notified before confirmed candidates > are announced. > > It is not necessary to notify and get consent from all confirmed > candidates together. > > A nominee may not know they were a candidate. This permits a > candidate to be rejected by a confirming body without the nominee > > > > Kucherawy Expires March 19, 2015 [Page 26] > > Internet-Draft NomCom September 2014 > > > knowing about the rejection. > > Rejected nominees, who consented to their nomination, and rejected > candidates must be notified prior to announcing the confirmed > candidates. > > It is not necessary to announce all confirmed candidates together. > > The nominating committee must ensure that all confirmed candidates > are prepared to serve prior to announcing their confirmation. > > 5.16. Archives > > The nominating committee should archive the information it has > collected or produced for a period of time 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. > [O] arise it is > [P] arise, it is > [R] grammar > > > 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. > > > > > Kucherawy Expires March 19, 2015 [Page 27] > > Internet-Draft NomCom September 2014 > > > 3. As soon as the process begins, the nominating committee may > continue those activities that are unrelated to the issue to be > resolved except that it must not submit any candidates to a > confirming body until the issue is resolved. > > 4. All parties to the process are subject to the same > confidentiality rules as each member of the nominating committee. > > 5. The process should be completed within two weeks. > > The process is as follows: > > 1. The party seeking resolution submits a written request (email is > acceptable) to the Internet Society President detailing the issue > to be resolved. > > 2. The Internet Society President appoints an arbiter to investigate > and resolve the issue. A self-appointment is permitted. > > 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. > > [O] that in the judgment of the arbiter does > [P] that, in the judgement of the arbiter, does > [R] readability > > 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. > > > > > Kucherawy Expires March 19, 2015 [Page 28] > > Internet-Draft NomCom September 2014 > > > 7.1. Petition > > At any time, at least 20 members of the IETF community, who are > qualified to be voting members of a nominating committee, may request > by signed petition (email is acceptable) to the Internet Society > President the recall of any sitting IAB, IAOC, or IESG member. > [O] President > [P] President, > [R] missing close comma on parenthetical phrase > > > All individual and collective qualifications of nominating committee > eligibility are applicable, including that no more than two > signatories may have the same primary affiliation. > > Each signature must include a full name, email address, and primary > company or organization affiliation. > > The IETF Secretariat is responsible for confirming that each > signatory is qualified to be a voting member of a nominating > committee. A valid petition must be signed by at least 20 qualified > signatories. > > The petition must include a statement of justification for the recall > and all relevant and appropriate supporting documentation. > > The petition and its signatories must be announced to the IETF > community. > > 7.2. Recall Committee Chair > > Internet Society President shall appoint a Recall Committee Chair. > > The Internet Society President must not evaluate the recall request. > It is explicitly the responsibility of the IETF community to evaluate > the behavior of its leaders. > > 7.3. Recall Committee Creation > > The recall committee is created according to the same rules as is the > nominating committee with the qualifications that both the person > being investigated and the parties requesting the recall must not be > a member of the recall committee in any capacity. > [O] as is the > [P] as the > [R] readability > > > 7.4. Recall Committee Rules > > The recall committee operates according to the same rules as the > nominating committee with the qualification that there is no > confirmation process. > > > > > > > Kucherawy Expires March 19, 2015 [Page 29] > > Internet-Draft NomCom September 2014 > > > 7.5. Recall Committee Operation > > The recall committee investigates the circumstances of the > justification for the recall and votes on its findings. > > The investigation must include at least both an opportunity for the > member being recalled to present a written statement and consultation > with third parties. > > 7.6. 3/4 Majority > > A 3/4 majority of the members who vote on the question is required > for a recall. > > 7.7. Position To Be Filled > > If a sitting member is recalled the open position is to be filled > according to the mid-term vacancy rules. > [O] is recalled the open position > [P] is recalled, the open position > [R] readability > > > 8. IANA Considerations > > This document contains no actions for IANA. > > [RFC Editor: Please remove this section prior to publication.] > > 9. 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. > > 10. References > > 10.1. Normative References > > [RFC3777] Galvin, J., "IAB and IESG Selection, Confirmation, and > Recall Process: Operation of the Nominating and Recall > Committees", BCP 10, RFC 3777, June 2004. > > > > Kucherawy Expires March 19, 2015 [Page 30] > > Internet-Draft NomCom September 2014 > > > [RFC4071] Austein, R. and B. Wijnen, "Structure of the IETF > Administrative Support Activity (IASA)", BCP 101, > RFC 4071, April 2005. > > 10.2. Informative References > > [RFC3797] Eastlake, D., "Publicly Verifiable Nominations Committee > (NomCom) Random Selection", RFC 3797, June 2004. > > Appendix A. Changes Since RFC 3777 > > o Converted from nroff to xml2rfc, resulting in some reformatting. > > o Applied RFC 3777 errata. > > o Applied RFC 5078 update. > > o Applied RFC 5633 update. > > o Applied RFC 5680 update. > > o Applied RFC 6859 update. > > o A few grammatical corrections. > > Appendix B. Oral Tradition > > Over the years various nominating committees have learned through > oral tradition passed on by liaisons that there are certain > consistencies in the process and information considered during > deliberations. Some items from that oral tradition are collected > here to facilitate its consideration by future nominating committees. > > 1. It has been found that experience as an IETF Working Group Chair > or an IRTF Research Group Chair is helpful in giving a nominee > experie > > -- > I don't think the execution is relevant when it was obviously a bad > idea in the first place. > This is like putting rabid weasels in your pants, and later expressing > regret at having chosen those particular rabid weasels and that pair > of pants. > ---maf >
- [secdir] secdir review of draft-kucherawy-rfc3777… Warren Kumari
- Re: [secdir] secdir review of draft-kucherawy-rfc… Barry Leiba
- Re: [secdir] secdir review of draft-kucherawy-rfc… Warren Kumari
- Re: [secdir] secdir review of draft-kucherawy-rfc… Murray S. Kucherawy
- Re: [secdir] secdir review of draft-kucherawy-rfc… Warren Kumari