💾 Archived View for gmi.noulin.net › rfc › rfc7437.gmi captured on 2023-06-14 at 21:26:35. Gemini links have been rewritten to link to archived content
⬅️ Previous capture (2022-01-08)
-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Updated by:
Obsoletes:
Obsoleted by:
Keywords: Internet Architecture Board, Engineering Steering Group, nomcom, IAOC
Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) M. Kucherawy, Ed.
Request for Comments: 7437 January 2015
BCP: 10
Obsoletes: 3777, 5078, 5633, 5680, 6859
Category: Best Current Practice
ISSN: 2070-1721
IAB, IESG, and IAOC Selection, Confirmation, and Recall Process:
Operation of the Nominating and Recall Committees
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 RFC 3777, with various updates since that version was
published.
Status of This Memo
This memo documents an Internet Best Current Practice.
This document is a product of the Internet Engineering Task Force
(IETF). It represents the consensus of the IETF community. It has
received public review and has been approved for publication by the
Internet Engineering Steering Group (IESG). Further information on
BCPs is available in Section 2 of RFC 5741.
Information about the current status of this document, any errata,
and how to provide feedback on it may be obtained at
http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7437.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2015 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
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.
Kucherawy Best Current Practice [Page 1]
RFC 7437 NomCom January 2015
Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2. Definitions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3. General . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
3.1. Completion Due . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
3.2. Nominating Committee Principal Functions . . . . . . . . 5
3.3. Positions To Be Reviewed . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
3.4. Term Lengths . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
3.5. Mid-term Vacancies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
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 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
4.2. Term . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
4.3. Structure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
4.4. Chair Duties . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
4.5. Chair Selection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
4.6. Temporary Chair . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
4.7. Liaisons . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
4.8. Liaison Appointment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
4.9. Advisors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
4.10. Past Chair . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
4.11. Voting Volunteers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
4.12. Milestones . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
4.13. Open Positions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
4.14. Volunteer Qualification . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
4.15. Not Qualified . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
4.16. Selection Process . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
4.17. Announcement of Selection Results . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
4.18. Committee Organization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
5. Nominating Committee Operation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
5.1. Discretion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
5.2. Selection Timeline . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
5.3. Confirmation Timeline . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
5.4. Milestones . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
5.5. Voting Mechanism . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
5.6. Voting Quorum . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
5.7. Voting Member Recall . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
5.8. Chair Recall . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
5.9. Deliberations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
5.10. Call for Nominees . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
5.11. Nominations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
5.12. Candidate Selection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
5.13. Consent to Nomination . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
5.14. Notifying Confirming Bodies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
Kucherawy Best Current Practice [Page 2]
RFC 7437 NomCom January 2015
5.15. Confirming Candidates . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
5.16. Archives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
6. Dispute Resolution Process . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
7. Member Recall . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
7.1. Petition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
7.2. Recall Committee Chair . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
7.3. Recall Committee Creation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
7.4. Recall Committee Rules . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
7.5. Recall Committee Operation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
7.6. 3/4 Majority . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
7.7. Position To Be Filled . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
8. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
9. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
9.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
9.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
Appendix A. Changes Since RFC 3777 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
Appendix B. Oral Tradition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
Appendix C. Nominating Committee Timeline . . . . . . . . . . . 32
Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
Author's Address . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
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
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.
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 reorganization) 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 three times
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.
Kucherawy Best Current Practice [Page 3]
RFC 7437 NomCom January 2015
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 is 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.
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.
IETF Executive Director: The person charged with operation of the
IETF Secretariat function. (See Section 2 of [RFC3710]).
Kucherawy Best Current Practice [Page 4]
RFC 7437 NomCom January 2015
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.
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.
Kucherawy Best Current Practice [Page 5]
RFC 7437 NomCom January 2015
The nominating committee does not select the open positions to be
reviewed; it is instructed as to which positions to review.
The nominating committee will be given the titles 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.
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.
The intent of this rule is to ensure the review of approximately one-
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 reorganized 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.
Kucherawy Best Current Practice [Page 6]
RFC 7437 NomCom January 2015
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
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.
Kucherawy Best Current Practice [Page 7]
RFC 7437 NomCom January 2015
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
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
Kucherawy Best Current Practice [Page 8]
RFC 7437 NomCom January 2015
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.
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 a 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].
Kucherawy Best Current Practice [Page 9]
RFC 7437 NomCom January 2015
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
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.
Kucherawy Best Current Practice [Page 10]
RFC 7437 NomCom January 2015
3.8. Sitting Members
The following rules apply to nominees and 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
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
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.
Kucherawy Best Current Practice [Page 11]
RFC 7437 NomCom January 2015
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.
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.
Kucherawy Best Current Practice [Page 12]
RFC 7437 NomCom January 2015
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 when 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.
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.
4.3. Structure
The nominating committee comprises at least a Chair, 10 voting
volunteers, two liaisons, and an advisor.
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 and IAB 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.
Kucherawy Best Current Practice [Page 13]
RFC 7437 NomCom January 2015
The Chair, liaisons, and advisors do not 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
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
Kucherawy Best Current Practice [Page 14]
RFC 7437 NomCom January 2015
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.
Liaisons from the IESG and IAB 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, 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.
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.
Kucherawy Best Current Practice [Page 15]
RFC 7437 NomCom January 2015
4.8. Liaison Appointment
The sitting 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
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.
Kucherawy Best Current Practice [Page 16]
RFC 7437 NomCom January 2015
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
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.
Kucherawy Best Current Practice [Page 17]
RFC 7437 NomCom January 2015
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.
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
Kucherawy Best Current Practice [Page 18]
RFC 7437 NomCom January 2015
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
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.
Kucherawy Best Current Practice [Page 19]
RFC 7437 NomCom January 2015
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 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 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.
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.
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.
Kucherawy Best Current Practice [Page 20]
RFC 7437 NomCom January 2015
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.
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 months
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 a set of nominating committee 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 that, 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 are not confirmed.
Kucherawy Best Current Practice [Page 21]
RFC 7437 NomCom January 2015
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.
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.
If a liaison member is recalled, the committee must notify the
affected organization and must allow a reasonable amount of time for
a replacement to be identified by the organization before proceeding.
Kucherawy Best Current Practice [Page 22]
RFC 7437 NomCom January 2015
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.
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.
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.
Kucherawy Best Current Practice [Page 23]
RFC 7437 NomCom January 2015
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.
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
Kucherawy Best Current Practice [Page 24]
RFC 7437 NomCom January 2015
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
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.
Kucherawy Best Current Practice [Page 25]
RFC 7437 NomCom January 2015
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.
The testimony may include a brief resume of the candidate and/or 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
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 but 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.
Kucherawy Best Current Practice [Page 26]
RFC 7437 NomCom January 2015
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.
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.
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.
Kucherawy Best Current Practice [Page 27]
RFC 7437 NomCom January 2015
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.
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.
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.
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.
Kucherawy Best Current Practice [Page 28]
RFC 7437 NomCom January 2015
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
The 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.
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.
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.
Kucherawy Best Current Practice [Page 29]
RFC 7437 NomCom January 2015
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
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.
9. References
9.1. Normative References
[RFC3710] Alvestrand, H., "An IESG charter", RFC 3710, February
2004, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3710>.
[RFC3777] Galvin, J., "IAB and IESG Selection, Confirmation, and
Recall Process: Operation of the Nominating and Recall
Committees", BCP 10, RFC 3777, June 2004,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3777>.
[RFC4071] Austein, R. and B. Wijnen, "Structure of the IETF
Administrative Support Activity (IASA)", BCP 101, RFC
4071, April 2005,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4071>.
9.2. Informative References
[Err232] RFC Errata, "Erratum ID 232", RFC 3777.
[Err4179] RFC Errata, "Erratum ID 4179", RFC 3777.
[RFC3797] Eastlake, D., "Publicly Verifiable Nominations Committee
(NomCom) Random Selection", RFC 3797, June 2004,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3797>.
Kucherawy Best Current Practice [Page 30]
RFC 7437 NomCom January 2015
Appendix A. Changes Since RFC 3777
o Converted source file from nroff to XML, resulting in some
reformatting.
o Applied errata for RFC 3777 ([Err232] and [Err4179]).
o Applied RFC 5078 update.
o Applied RFC 5633 update.
o Applied RFC 5680 update.
o Applied RFC 6859 update.
o Corrected a few grammatical errors.
o Added a reference to RFC 3710.
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
experience of what the job of an Area Director involves. It also
helps a nominating committee judge the technical, people, and
process management skills of the nominee.
2. No person should serve both on the IAB and as an Area Director,
except the IETF Chair whose roles as an IAB member and Area
Director of the General Area are set out elsewhere.
3. The strength of the IAB is found in part in the balance of the
demographics of its members (e.g., national distribution, years
of experience, gender, etc.), the combined skill set of its
members, and the combined sectors (e.g., industry, academia,
etc.) represented by its members.
4. There are no term limits explicitly because the issue of
continuity versus turnover should be evaluated each year
according to the expectations of the IETF community, as it is
understood by each nominating committee.
Kucherawy Best Current Practice [Page 31]
RFC 7437 NomCom January 2015
5. The number of nominating committee members with the same primary
affiliation is limited in order to avoid the appearance of
improper bias in choosing the leadership of the IETF. Rather
than defining precise rules for how to define "affiliation", the
IETF community depends on the honor and integrity of the
participants to make the process work.
Appendix C. Nominating Committee Timeline
This appendix is included for the convenience of the reader and is
not to be interpreted as the definitive timeline. It is intended to
capture the detail described elsewhere in this document in one place.
Although every effort has been made to ensure the description here is
consistent with the description elsewhere, if there are any conflicts
the definitive rule is the one in the main body of this document.
The only absolute in the timeline rules for the annual process is
that its completion is due by the First IETF of the year after the
nominating committee begins its term. This is supported by the fact
that the confirmed candidate terms begin during the week of the First
IETF.
The overall annual process is designed to be completed in seven
months. It is expected to start nine months prior to the First IETF.
The time is split between three major components of the process
roughly as follows:
1. First is the selection and organization of the committee members.
Three months are allotted for this process.
2. Second is the selection of the candidates by the nominating
committee. Four months are allotted for this process.
3. Third is the confirmation of the candidates by their respective
confirming bodies. Two months are allotted for this process.
The following list captures the details of the milestones within each
component. For illustrative purposes, the list presumes the Friday
before the First IETF is March 1. Numbers shown in square brackets
indicate the expected number of weeks at each step.
1. BEGIN Eight Months Prior to First IETF (approx. June 1);
Internet Society President appoints the Chair. The appointment
must be done no later than the Second IETF or eight months prior
to the First IETF, whichever comes first. The Chair must be
announced and recognized during a plenary session of the Second
IETF. [0]
Kucherawy Best Current Practice [Page 32]
RFC 7437 NomCom January 2015
2. The Chair establishes and announces milestones to ensure the
timely selection of the nominating committee members. [1]
3. The Chair contacts the IESG, IAB, and Internet Society Board of
Trustees and requests a liaison. The Chair contacts the prior
year's Chair and requests an advisor. The Chair obtains the
list of IESG, IAB, and IAOC open positions and descriptions from
the IETF Executive Director. [0]
4. The Chair announces the solicitation for voting volunteer
members that must remain open for at least 30 days. The
announcement must be done no later than seven months and two
weeks prior to the First IETF (approx. June 15). [6]
5. After the solicitation closes, the Chair announces the pool of
volunteers and the date of the random selection, which must be
at least one week in the future. The announcement must be done
no later than six months and two weeks prior to the First IETF
(approx. July 15). [1]
6. On the appointed day, the random selection occurs and the Chair
announces the members of the committee and the one week
challenge period. The announcement must be done no later than
six months and one week prior to the First IETF (approx. July
22). [1]
7. During the challenge period, the Chair contacts each of the
committee members and confirms their availability to
participate. [0]
8. After the challenge period closes, the Chair announces the
members of the committee and its term begins. The announcement
must be done no later than six months prior to the First IETF
(approx. August 1). [1]
9. The committee has one month during which it is to self-organize
in preparation for completing its assigned duties. This must be
done no later than five months prior to the First IETF (approx.
September 15). [6]
10. END the Committee Member Selection Process; BEGIN the Selection
of Candidates; Time is at least five months prior to the First
IETF (approx. September 22). [0]
Kucherawy Best Current Practice [Page 33]
RFC 7437 NomCom January 2015
11. The Chair establishes and announces the milestones to ensure the
timely selection of the candidates, including a call for
nominations for the open positions. The announcement must be
done no later than five months prior to the First IETF (approx.
October 1). [1]
12. Over the next three months, the nominating committee collects
input and deliberates. It should plan to conduct interviews and
other consultations during the Third IETF. The committee is due
to complete its candidate selection no later than two months
prior to the First IETF (approx. January 1). [17]
13. END the Selection of Candidates; BEGIN the Confirmation of
Candidates; Time is at least two months prior to the First IETF
(approx. January 1). [0]
14. The committee presents its candidates to their respective
confirming bodies. The presentation must be done no later than
two months prior to the First IETF (approx. January 1). [0]
15. The confirming bodies have one month to deliberate and, in
communication with the nominating committee, accept or reject
candidates. [4]
16. The Chair notifies and advises unsuccessful nominees that they
have not been selected. [1]
17. The Chair announces the confirmed candidates. The announcement
must be done no later than one month prior to the First IETF
(approx. February 1). [4]
Kucherawy Best Current Practice [Page 34]
RFC 7437 NomCom January 2015
Acknowledgments
A great deal of work went into the RFCs that preceded this one. The
2014 nominating committee and this editor would like to thank all of
them once again for the time and energy it took to get us to where we
are now. In no particular order, we acknowledge:
Jeff Case Fred Baker John Curran
Guy Almes Geoff Huston Mike St. Johns
Donald Eastlake Avri Doria Bernard Adoba
Ted T'so Phil Roberts Jim Galvin
Harald Alvestrand Leslie Daigle Joel Halpern
Thomas Narten Spencer Dawkins Barry Leiba
Lars Eggert Ross Callon Brian Carpenter
Robert Elz Bernie Hoeneisen John Klensin
Danny McPherson S. Moonesamy Scott Bradner
Ralph Droms Pekka Savola
Allison Mankin and Russ White provided early reviews and feedback
about this document.
Jari Arkko was very helpful by independently verifying that the
previous text from all the merged documents was marshaled correctly
into this one, and Adrian Farrel and Brian Carpenter caught the nits
that fell through the cracks.
Author's Address
Murray S. Kucherawy (editor)
270 Upland Drive
San Francisco, CA 94127
United States
EMail: superuser@gmail.com
Kucherawy Best Current Practice [Page 35]