Re: [secdir] secdir review of draft-kucherawy-rfc3777bis

["Murray S. Kucherawy" <[e-mail]>]

(Apologies for the top-post; deleting the whole review except this comment
turned out to be too painful this morning.)

Thanks, Warren, and Barry for saying what I was about to say.

I might take some of your editorial corrections that seem harmless, however.

See you in HI,
-MSK


On Wed, Oct 29, 2014 at 8:46 AM, Warren Kumari <[e-mail]> wrote:

> On Wed, Oct 29, 2014 at 11:44 AM, Barry Leiba <[e-mail]>
> wrote:
> > 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.
> >
>
>
> K, figured that might be the case -- well, in that case, all good from
> my point of view.
>
> W
>
>
> > Barry
> >
> >
> > On Wednesday, October 29, 2014, Warren Kumari <[e-mail]> 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
>
>
>
> --
> 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
>