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

Warren Kumari <warren@kumari.net> Wed, 29 October 2014 15:46 UTC

Return-Path: <warren@kumari.net>
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 BE8B41A036B for <secdir@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 29 Oct 2014 08:46:40 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.968
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.968 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, GB_I_INVITATION=-2, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, 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 EARs4XYF9DRR for <secdir@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 29 Oct 2014 08:46:29 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-wg0-f51.google.com (mail-wg0-f51.google.com [74.125.82.51]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id EBA201A1A45 for <secdir@ietf.org>; Wed, 29 Oct 2014 08:46:28 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-wg0-f51.google.com with SMTP id l18so3632446wgh.10 for <secdir@ietf.org>; Wed, 29 Oct 2014 08:46:27 -0700 (PDT)
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date :message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; bh=FFJAP3DD16Tcsf+Vh62Rs2oKEVpCXtHNkybi6n8YgME=; b=bFYjderAjPQuYccjezjmmCXcdszelvRWgDvsPUjQLVmzYAxlvou3FZOd0bqfEkMWs/ xUgTbRAsEmKxJhASl7ks2V/rZnDKy/apu+sEiIP7AeDFJKAX2pSPsMWGe5ybx/8/N5gi 1sDw6+Nj6eVcYlmmN5IKc8DPXeUpAgkS1+wC4IRZHpDg7p3R9DdGn3KgB7jwesN8Z+LQ w0jyyUot7wJdVMw3xeD3vDZrwwSrrUTiuIovk6wDTwJ/sdxYy7rgIuKrOKL++ol8RQCV yxx+F8U7BGjYkqPwvIqtuLUhS6s75vO/zfjAjdjqdCV0/9vnf892OljyUpgaznyOG/eE T71g==
X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQlVcgQu4ocWhPZS4e+Ad4+XZlLZYbzdYU1qqS7cLegHjhN1jEvlRiCuDMJDf4XOVKYwpMZU
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.180.104.105 with SMTP id gd9mr36783123wib.65.1414597587099; Wed, 29 Oct 2014 08:46:27 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.194.77.134 with HTTP; Wed, 29 Oct 2014 08:46:27 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <CALaySJJVd1ZSSZt=Q3MBPr8WAJu7Y+pGF0=QVi-8T7FFq0zU=A@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAHw9_i++j9p6RNYgHb+Vyh2yDUiCs==8=EStTyCb9Ly7h6EU3Q@mail.gmail.com> <CALaySJJVd1ZSSZt=Q3MBPr8WAJu7Y+pGF0=QVi-8T7FFq0zU=A@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 29 Oct 2014 11:46:27 -0400
Message-ID: <CAHw9_iK1OViPSCA=4Jq8KarrP86dda8p94gfV55Gc2p3k0MriA@mail.gmail.com>
From: Warren Kumari <warren@kumari.net>
To: Barry Leiba <barryleiba@computer.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/secdir/cAeE8leQnFQfTL_oCo6H8rNpF5g
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 15:46:40 -0000

On Wed, Oct 29, 2014 at 11:44 AM, Barry Leiba <barryleiba@computer.org> 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 <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



-- 
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