💾 Archived View for gmi.noulin.net › rfc › rfc2727.gmi captured on 2023-06-14 at 19:53:40. Gemini links have been rewritten to link to archived content
⬅️ Previous capture (2021-12-05)
-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Obsoletes:
Obsoleted by:
Keywords: Internet, Architecture, Board, Engineering, Steering, Group
Network Working Group J. Galvin
Request for Comments: 2727 eList eXpress LLC
BCP: 10 February 2000
Obsoletes: 2282
Category: Best Current Practice
IAB and IESG Selection, Confirmation, and Recall Process:
Operation of the Nominating and Recall Committees
Status of this Memo
This document specifies an Internet Best Current Practices for the
Internet Community, and requests discussion and suggestions for
improvements. Distribution of this memo is unlimited.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2000). All Rights Reserved.
Abstract
The process by which the members of the IAB and IESG are selected,
confirmed, and recalled is specified. This document is a self-
consistent, organized compilation of the process as it was known at
the time of publication.
Table of Contents
1 Introduction ................................................. 1
2 General ...................................................... 2
3 Nominating Committee Selection ............................... 6
4 Nominating Committee Operation ............................... 8
5 Member Recall ................................................ 11
6 Changes From RFC2282 ......................................... 12
7 Acknowledgements ............................................. 13
8 Security Considerations ...................................... 14
9 References ................................................... 14
10 Editor's Address ............................................ 14
11 Full Copyright Statement .................................... 15
1. Introduction
This document is a revision of and supercedes RFC2282. It is a
complete specification of the process by which members of the IAB and
IESG are selected, confirmed, and recalled as of the date of its
approval. However, these procedures are subject to change and such
change takes effect immediately upon its approval, regardless of
Galvin Best Current Practice [Page 1]
RFC 2727 IAB and IESG Selection February 2000
whether this document has yet been revised.
The following two assumptions continue to be true of this
specification.
(1) The Internet Research Task Force (IRTF) and Internet Research
Steering Group (IRSG) are not a part of the process described
here.
(2) The organization (and re-organization) of the IESG is not a part
of the process described here.
The time frames specified here use IETF meetings as a frame of
reference. The time frames assume that the IETF meets at least once
per calendar year. This document specifies time frames relative to
the first IETF of the calendar year, or simply "First IETF".
The remainder 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
volunteers from the IETF community are recognized to serve on
the committee that nominates candidates to serve on the IESG and
IAB.
Nominating Committee Operation This is the set of principles, rules,
and constraints that guide the activities of the nominating
committee, including the confirmation process.
Member Recall This is the process by which the behavior of a sitting
member of the IESG or IAB may be questioned, perhaps resulting
in the removal of the sitting member.
A final section describes how this document differs from its
predecessor: RFC2282.
2. General
The following set of rules apply to the selection and confirmation
process as a whole. If necessary, a paragraph discussing the
interpretation of each rule is included.
(1) The principal functions of the nominating committee are to
review the open IESG and IAB positions and to either nominate
its incumbent or recruit a superior candidate.
Galvin Best Current Practice [Page 2]
RFC 2727 IAB and IESG Selection February 2000
The nominating committee does not select the open positions to be
reviewed; it is instructed as to which positions to review.
At a minimum, the nominating committee will be given the title of
the position to be reviewed. The nominating committee may be
given a desirable set of qualifications for the candidate
nominated to fill each position.
Incumbents must notify the nominating committee if they do not
wish to be nominated.
The nominating committee does not confirm its candidates; it
presents its candidates to the appropriate confirming body as
indicated below.
(2) The annual selection and confirmation process is expected to be
completed within 3 months.
The annual selection and confirmation process is expected to be
completed one month prior to the friday of the week before the
First IETF. It is expected to begin 4 months prior to the Friday
of the week before the First IETF.
(3) One-half of each of the then current IESG and IAB positions is
selected to be reviewed each year.
The intent of this rule to ensure the review of approximately
one-half of each of the sitting IESG and IAB members each year.
It is recognized that circumstances may exist that will require
the nominating committee to review more or less than one-half of
the current positions, e.g., if the IESG or IAB have re-organized
prior to this process and created new positions, or if there are
an odd number of current positions.
(4) Confirmed candidates are expected to serve at least a 2 year
term.
The intent of this rule is to ensure that members of the IESG and
IAB serve the number of years that best facilitates the review of
one-half of the members each year.
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 greater than 2 years in order to ensure the ideal
application of this rule in the future.
Galvin Best Current Practice [Page 3]
RFC 2727 IAB and IESG Selection February 2000
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 greater than 2
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. Normally, the confirmed candidate's term
begins when the currently sitting member's term ends 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. The confirmed
candidate's term may overlap the sitting member's term during the
meeting as determined by their mutual agreement.
(5) Mid-term vacancies are filled by the same rules as documented
here with four qualifications. First, the most recently
constituted nominating committee is reconvened to nominate a
candidate to fill the vacancy. Second, the selection and
confirmation process is expected to be completed within 1 month,
with all other time periods otherwise unspecified prorated
accordingly. Third, the confirming body has two weeks from the
day it is notified of a candidate to reject the candidate,
otherwise the candidate is assumed to have been confirmed.
Fourth, the term of the confirmed candidate will be either:
a. the remainder of the term of the open position if that remainder
is not less than one year.
b. the remainder of the term of the open position plus the next 2
year term if that remainder is less than one year.
(6) All deliberations and supporting information that relates to
specific nominees, candidates, and confirmed candidates are
confidential.
The nominating committee and confirming body members will be
exposed to confidential information as a result of their
deliberations, their interactions with those they consult, and
from those who provide requested supporting information. All
members and all other participants are expected to handle this
information in a manner consistent with its sensitivity.
Galvin Best Current Practice [Page 4]
RFC 2727 IAB and IESG Selection February 2000
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.
(7) Unless otherwise specified, the advise and consent model is used
throughout the process. This model is characterized as follows.
a. The IETF Executive Director advises the nominating committee of
the IESG and IAB positions to be reviewed.
b. The nominating committee selects candidates and advises the
confirming bodies of them.
c. The sitting IAB members review the IESG candidates, consenting to
some, all, or none.
If all of the candidates are confirmed, the job of the nominating
committee with respect to reviewing the open IESG positions is
considered complete. If some or none of the candidates are
confirmed, the nominating committee must reconvene to select
alternate candidates for the rejected candidates. Any additional
time required by the nominating committee should not exceed its
maximum time allotment.
d. The Internet Society Board of Trustees reviews the IAB candidates,
consenting to some, all, or none.
If all of the candidates are confirmed, the job of the nominating
committee with respect to reviewing the open IAB positions is
considered complete. If some or none of the candidates are
confirmed, the nominating committee must reconvene to select
alternate candidates for the rejected candidates. Any additional
time required by the nominating committee should not exceed its
maximum time allotment.
e. The confirming bodies decide their consent according to a
mechanism of their own choosing, which must ensure that at least
one-half of the sitting members agree with the decision.
At least one-half of the sitting members of the confirming bodies
must agree to either confirm or reject each individual nominee.
The agreement must be decided within a reasonable timeframe. The
agreement may be decided by conducting a formal vote, by asserting
consensus based on informal exchanges (email), or by whatever
mechanism is used to conduct the normal business of the confirming
body.
Galvin Best Current Practice [Page 5]
RFC 2727 IAB and IESG Selection February 2000
3. Nominating Committee Selection
The following set of rules apply to the creation of the nominating
committee and the selection of its members.
(1) The committee comprises at least a non-voting Chair, 10 voting
volunteers, and 3 non-voting liaisons.
Any committee member may propose the addition of a non-voting
advisor to participate in some or all of the deliberations of the
committee. The addition must be approved by both the voting and
non-voting members of the committee according to its established
voting mechanism. Advisors participate as individuals.
Any committee member may propose the addition of a non-voting
liaison from other unrepresented organizations to participate in
some or all of the deliberations of the committee. The addition
must be approved by both the voting and non-voting members of the
committee according to its established voting mechanism. Liaisons
participate as representatives of their respective organizations.
Advisors and liaisons must meet the usual requirements for
membership in the nominating committee. In the case of liaisons
the requirements apply to the organization not to the individual.
(2) The Internet Society President appoints the non-voting Chair,
who must meet the usual requirements for membership in the
nominating committee.
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.
(3) The Chair obtains the list of IESG and IAB positions to be
reviewed and publishes it along with a solicitation for names of
volunteers from the IETF community willing to serve on 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.
The list and solicitation must be publicized using at least the
same mechanism used by the IETF secretariat for its announcements.
(4) Members of the IETF community must have attended at least 2 of
the last 3 IETF meetings in order to volunteer.
Galvin Best Current Practice [Page 6]
RFC 2727 IAB and IESG Selection February 2000
(5) Internet Society Board of Trustees, sitting members of the IAB,
and sitting members of the IESG may not volunteer.
(6) The Chair announces the pool of volunteers from which the 10
voting volunteers will be randomly selected.
The announcement must be made using at least the same mechanism
used by the IETF secretariat for its announcements.
(7) The Chair randomly selects the 10 voting volunteers from the
pool of names of volunteers using a method that can be
independently verified to be unbiased and fair.
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.
The method must include an announcement of an enumerated list of
the pool of names together with the specific algorithm for how
names will be chosen from the list. The output of the selection
algorithm must depend on random data whose value is not known at
the time the list and algorithm are announced.
One possible method is described in [1].
All announcements must be made using at least the mechanism used
by the IETF secretariat for its announcements.
(8) The sitting IAB and IESG members each appoint a non-voting
liaison to the nominating committee from their current
membership who are not sitting in an open position.
(9) The Chair of the prior year's nominating committee serves as a
non-voting liaison.
The prior year's Chair may select a designee from a pool composed
of the voting members of the prior year's committee and all prior
Chairs if the Chair is unavailable. If the prior year's Chair is
unavailable and is unable or unwilling to make such a designation
in a timely fashion, the Chair of the current committee may do so.
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.
Galvin Best Current Practice [Page 7]
RFC 2727 IAB and IESG Selection February 2000
4. 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.
The term nominee refers to an individual under consideration by the
nominating committee. The term candidate refers to a nominee that
has been selected by the nominating committee to be considered for
confirmation by a confirming body. A confirmed candidate is a
candidate that has been reviewed and approved by a confirming body.
(1) All rules and special circumstances not otherwise specified are
at the discretion of the committee.
Exceptional circumstances will occasionally arise during the
normal operation of the nominating committee. This rule is
intended to foster the continued forward progress of the
committee.
Any member of the committee may propose a rule for adoption by the
committee. The rule must be approved by both the voting and non-
voting members of 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
followup accordingly.
(2) The Chair must establish and publicize milestones, which must
include at least a call for nominations.
There is a defined time period during which the 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 milestones must be publicized using at least the same
mechanism used by the IETF secretariat for its announcements.
Galvin Best Current Practice [Page 8]
RFC 2727 IAB and IESG Selection February 2000
(3) 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.
(4) At least a quorum of committee members must participate in a
vote. A quorum comprises at least 7 voting members.
(5) The Chair may establish a process by which a member of the
nominating committee may be recalled.
The process, if established, must be agreed to by a 3/4 majority
of the members of the nominating committee, including the non-
voting members since they would be subject to the same process.
(6) All members of the nominating committee may participate in all
deliberations.
The emphasis of this rule is that no member, whether voting or
non-voting, can be explicitly excluded from any deliberation.
However, a member may individually choose not to participate in a
deliberation.
(7) The Chair announces the open positions to be reviewed 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 announcements must be publicized using at least the same
mechanism used by the IETF secretariat for its announcements.
(8) Any member of the IETF community may nominate any member of the
IETF community for any open position.
A self-nomination is permitted.
(9) Nominating committee members must not be nominees.
To be a nominee is to enter the process of being selected as a
candidate and confirmed. Nominating committee members are not
eligible to be considered for filling any open position. They
become ineligible as soon as their role is announced to the IETF
community and they remain ineligible for the duration of this
nominating committee's term.
Galvin Best Current Practice [Page 9]
RFC 2727 IAB and IESG Selection February 2000
(10) Members of the IETF community who were recalled from any IESG or
IAB position during the previous two years must not be nominees.
(11) 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.
The consultations are permitted to include a slate of nominees, if
all parties to the consultation agree to observe customary and
reasonable rules of confidentiality.
A broad base of the community should include the existing members
of the IAB and IESG, especially sitting members who share
responsibilities with open positions, e.g., co-Area Directors.
(12) Nominees should be advised that they are being considered and
must consent to their nomination prior to being confirmed.
The nominating committee should help nominees provide
justification to their employers.
A nominee's consent must be written (email is acceptable) and
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.
(13) The nominating committee advises the confirming bodies of their
candidates, specifying a single candidate for each open position
and a testament as to how each candidate meets the
qualifications of an open position.
The testament may include a brief resume of the candidate and a
summary of the deliberations of the nominating committee.
(14) With respect to any action to be taken in the context of
notifying and announcing confirmed candidates, and notifying
rejected nominees and candidates, the action must be valid
according to all of the rules specified below prior to its
execution.
Galvin Best Current Practice [Page 10]
RFC 2727 IAB and IESG Selection February 2000
a. Up until a candidate is confirmed, the identity of the candidate
must be kept confidential.
b. The identity of all nominees must be kept confidential (except
that the nominee may publicize their intentions).
c. Rejected nominees may be notified as soon as they are rejected.
d. Rejected candidates may be notified as soon as they are rejected.
e. Rejected nominees and candidates must be notified prior to
announcing confirmed candidates.
f. Confirmed candidates may be notified and announced as soon as they
are confirmed.
It is consistent with these rules for a nominee to never know if
they were a candidate or not.
It is consistent with these rules for some nominees to be rejected
early in the process and for some nominees to be kept as
alternates in case a candidate is rejected by a confirming body.
In the matter of whether a confirmed candidate was a first choice
or an alternate, that information need not ever be disclosed and,
in fact, probably never should be.
It is consistent with these rules for confirmed candidates to be
notified and announced as quickly as possible instead of requiring
all confirmed candidates to wait until all open positions have
been reviewed.
When consulting with individual members of the IETF community, if
all parties to the consultation agree to observe customary and
reasonable rules of confidentiality the consultations are
permitted to include a slate of nominees.
The announcements must be publicized using at least the same
mechanism used by the IETF secretariat for its announcements.
5. Member Recall
The following rules apply to the recall process. If necessary, a
paragraph discussing the interpretation of each rule is included.
(1) Anyone may request the recall of any sitting IAB or IESG member,
at any time, upon written (email is acceptable) request with
justification to the Internet Society President.
Galvin Best Current Practice [Page 11]
RFC 2727 IAB and IESG Selection February 2000
(2) Internet Society President shall appoint a Recall Committee
Chair.
The Internet Society President must not evaluate the recall
request. It is explicitly the responsibility of the IETF
community to evaluate the behavior of its leaders.
(3) The recall committee is created according to the same rules as
is the nominating committee with the qualifications that the
person being investigated and the person requesting the recall
must not be a member of the recall committee in any capacity.
(4) The recall committee operates according to the same rules as the
nominating committee with the qualification that there is no
confirmation process.
(5) The recall committee investigates the circumstances of the
justification for the recall and votes on its findings.
The investigation must include at least both an opportunity for
the member being recalled to present a written statement and
consultation with third parties.
(6) A 3/4 majority of the members who vote on the question is
required for a recall.
(7) If a sitting member is recalled the open position is to be
filled according to the mid-term vacancy rules.
6. Changes From RFC2282
Editorial changes are not described here, only substantive changes.
They are listed here in the order in which they appear in the
document.
(1) The frame of reference for timeframes was changed from the
seasonal "Spring IETF" reference to the less geographic and more
temporal "First IETF" reference.
(2) The terms of the sitting members and their respective confirmed
candidates is explicitly permitted to overlap during the First
IETF as determined by their mutual agreement.
(3) Nominating committee members who have served on prior committees
are explicitly permitted to advise the current committee on the
deliberations and results of the prior committee.
Galvin Best Current Practice [Page 12]
RFC 2727 IAB and IESG Selection February 2000
(4) The role and opportunity for additional advisors and liaisons to
the nominating committee was clarified.
(5) A reference to a documented and accepted fair and unbiased
mechanism for randomly selecting nominating committee members
from the pool of volunteers was added.
(6) The option for the prior year's Chair to select a designee to
serve as liaison to the current year's committee was clarified
to ensure the Chair selected a non-voting liaison from a pool
composed of the prior year's voting members and all prior
committee Chairs.
(7) The responsibility and authority for the activities of the
nominating committee rests with the committee as a whole, not
with the Chair. The operation of the committee was clarified to
require changes in process and the handling of exceptions to be
approved by the committee as a whole as opposed to being at the
discretion of the Chair.
(8) The rule that prevented nominating committee members from being
eligible to be considered for any open position was clarified to
explicitly state that the rule applies from the point in time
that the committee membership is announced through the entire
term of the current committee.
7. Acknowledgements
There have been a number of people involved with the development of
this document over the years. A great deal of credit goes to the
first three Nominating Committee Chairs:
1993 - Jeff Case
1994 - Fred Baker
1995 - John Curran
who had the pleasure of operating without the benefit of a documented
process. It was their fine work and oral tradition that became the
first version of this document. Of course we can not overlook the
bug discovery burden that each of the Chairs since the first
publication have had to endure:
Galvin Best Current Practice [Page 13]
RFC 2727 IAB and IESG Selection February 2000
1996 - Guy Almes
1997 - Geoff Houston
1998 - Mike St. Johns
1999 - Donald Eastlake
Of course the bulk of the credit goes to the members of the POISSON
Working Group, previously the POISED Working Group. The prose here
would not be what it is were it not for the attentive and insightful
review of its members. Specific acknowledgement must be extended to
Scott Bradner and John Klensin, who have consistently contributed to
the improvement of this document throughout its evolution.
8. 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
has a responsibility to maintain the confidentiality of any and all
information not explicitly identified as suitable for public
dissemination.
9. References
[1] Eastlake, D., "Publicly Verifiable Nomcom Random Selection", RFC
2777, February 2000.
10. Editor's Address
James M. Galvin
eList eXpress LLC
607 Trixsam Road
Sykesville, MD 21784
EMail: galvin@elistx.com
Galvin Best Current Practice [Page 14]
RFC 2727 IAB and IESG Selection February 2000
11. Full Copyright Statement
Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2000). All Rights Reserved.
This document and translations of it may be copied and furnished to
others, and derivative works that comment on or otherwise explain it
or assist in its implementation may be prepared, copied, published
and distributed, in whole or in part, without restriction of any
kind, provided that the above copyright notice and this paragraph are
included on all such copies and derivative works. However, this
document itself may not be modified in any way, such as by removing
the copyright notice or references to the Internet Society or other
Internet organizations, except as needed for the purpose of
developing Internet standards in which case the procedures for
copyrights defined in the Internet Standards process must be
followed, or as required to translate it into languages other than
English.
The limited permissions granted above are perpetual and will not be
revoked by the Internet Society or its successors or assigns.
This document and the information contained herein is provided on an
"AS IS" basis and THE INTERNET SOCIETY AND THE INTERNET ENGINEERING
TASK FORCE DISCLAIMS ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING
BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF THE INFORMATION
HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF
MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.
Acknowledgement
Funding for the RFC Editor function is currently provided by the
Internet Society.
Galvin Best Current Practice [Page 15]