GENWiki

Premier IT Outsourcing and Support Services within the UK

User Tools

Site Tools


rfc:rfc3777

Network Working Group J. Galvin, Ed. Request for Comments: 3777 eList eXpress LLC Obsoletes: 2727 June 2004 BCP: 10 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 (2004).

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 . .  .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  2
 2.  Definitions  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  3
 3.  General  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  3
 4.  Nominating Committee Selection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
 5.  Nominating Committee Operation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
 6.  Dispute Resolution Process . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
 7.  Member Recall  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
 8.  Changes From RFC 2727. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
 9.  Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
 10. Security Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
 11. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
 A.  Oral Tradition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
 B.  Nominating Committee Timeline  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
     Author's Address . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
     Full Copyright Statement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34

Galvin Best Current Practice [Page 1] RFC 3777 IAB and IESG Selection June 2004

1. Introduction

 This document is a revision of and supercedes RFC 2727 [2].  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.
 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 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.
 The next section lists the words and phrases commonly used throughout
 this document with their intended meaning.
 The majority of this document is divided into four major topics as
 follows.
 General: This a set of rules and constraints that apply to the
    selection and confirmation process as a whole.
 Nominating Committee Selection: This is the process by which the
    volunteers who will serve on the committee are recognized.
 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: RFC 2727 [2].
 An appendix of useful facts and practices collected from previous
 nominating committees is also included.

Galvin Best Current Practice [Page 2] RFC 3777 IAB and IESG Selection June 2004

2. Definitions

 The following words and phrases are commonly used throughout this
 document.  They are listed here with their intended meaning for the
 convenience of the reader.
 candidate: A nominee who has been selected to be considered for
    confirmation by a confirming body.
 confirmed candidate: A candidate that has been reviewed and approved
    by a confirming body.
 nominating committee term: The term begins when its members are
    officially announced, which is expected to be prior to the Third
    IETF to ensure it is fully operational at the Third IETF.  The
    term ends at the Third IETF (not three meetings) after the next
    nominating committee's term begins.
 nominee: A person who is being or has been considered for one or more
    open positions of the IESG or IAB.
 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.
 1. The completion of the annual process is due within 7 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 8 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.

Galvin Best Current Practice [Page 3] RFC 3777 IAB and IESG Selection June 2004

    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.
 2. The principal functions of the nominating committee are to review
    each open IESG and IAB position and to either nominate its
    incumbent or a superior candidate.
    Although there is no term limit for serving in any IESG or IAB
    position, the nominating committee may use length of service as
    one of its criteria for evaluating an incumbent.
    The nominating committee does not select the open positions to be
    reviewed; it is instructed as to which positions to review.
    The nominating committee will be given the title of the positions
    to be reviewed and a brief summary of the desired expertise of the
    candidate that is nominated to fill each position.
    Incumbents must notify the nominating committee if they wish to be
    nominated.
    The nominating committee does not confirm its candidates; it
    presents its candidates to the appropriate confirming body as
    indicated below.
    A superior candidate is one who the nominating committee believes
    would contribute in such a way as to improve or enhance the body
    to which he or she is nominated.
 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 IESG and IAB sitting 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, if there are an
    odd number of current positions, or if a member unexpectedly
    resigns.

Galvin Best Current Practice [Page 4] RFC 3777 IAB and IESG Selection June 2004

 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.
    The term of a confirmed candidate selected according to the mid-
    term vacancy rules may be less than 2 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 3 years in order to ensure the
    ideal application of this rule in the future.
    It is consistent with this rule for the nominating committee to
    choose one or more of the currently open positions that share
    responsibilities with other positions (both those being reviewed
    and those sitting) to which it may assign a term of not more than
    3 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 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.

Galvin Best Current Practice [Page 5] RFC 3777 IAB and IESG Selection June 2004

 5. Mid-term vacancies are filled by the same rules as documented here
    with four qualifications.
    First, 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.
    Second, 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 6
    weeks, 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:
    1. the remainder of the term of the open position if that
       remainder is not less than one year.
    2. the remainder of the term of the open position plus the next 2
       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.
 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.
    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.

Galvin Best Current Practice [Page 6] RFC 3777 IAB and IESG Selection June 2004

 7. Unless otherwise specified, the advice and consent model is used
    throughout the process.  This model is characterized as follows.
    1. The IETF Executive Director informs the nominating committee of
       the IESG and IAB positions to be reviewed.
       The IESG and IAB are responsible for providing summary of the
       expertise desired of the candidates selected for their
       respective open positions to the Executive Director.  The
       summaries are provided to the nominating committee for its
       consideration.
    2. 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. 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 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.

Galvin Best Current Practice [Page 7] RFC 3777 IAB and IESG Selection June 2004

       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.
    4. 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.
 8. The following rules apply to nominees candidates who are currently
    sitting members of the IESG or IAB, 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 or IAB 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, IESG, and nominating committee until the confirmed candidate
    is announced for the new position.  The process, according to

Galvin Best Current Practice [Page 8] RFC 3777 IAB and IESG Selection June 2004

    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.
  • The nominating committee completes the advice and consent

process for the open position being filled by the candidate

       currently sitting on the IAB.
  • The newly confirmed candidate resigns from their current

position on the IAB.

  • The IAB with the new mid-term vacancy requests that the

nominating committee fill the position.

  • The Executive Director of the IETF informs the nominating

committee of the mid-term vacancy.

  • The nominating committee acts on the request to fill the mid-

term vacancy.

 9. 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.

Galvin Best Current Practice [Page 9] RFC 3777 IAB and IESG Selection June 2004

4. Nominating Committee Selection

 The following set of rules apply to the creation of the nominating
 committee and the selection of its members.
 1.  The completion of the process of selecting and organizing the
     members of the nominating committee is due within 3 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.
 2.  The term of a nominating committee is expected to be 15 months.
     It is the intent of this rule that the end of a nominating
     committee's term overlap by approximately three months the
     beginning of the term of the next nominating committee.
     The term of a nominating committee begins when its members are
     officially announced.  The term ends at the Third IETF (not three
     meetings), i.e., the IETF meeting after the next nominating
     committee's term begins.
     A term is expected to begin at least two months prior to the
     Third IETF to ensure the nominating committee has at least one
     month to get organized before preparing for the Third IETF.
     A nominating committee is expected to complete any work-in-
     progress before it is dissolved at the end of its term.
     During the period of time that the terms of the nominating
     committees overlap, all mid-term vacancies are to be relegated to
     the prior year's nominating committee.  The prior year's
     nominating committee has no other responsibilities during the
     overlap period.  At all times other than the overlap period there
     is exactly one official nominating committee and it is
     responsible for all mid-term vacancies.
     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.
 3.  The nominating committee comprises at least a Chair, 10 voting
     volunteers, 3 liaisons, and an advisor.

Galvin Best Current Practice [Page 10] RFC 3777 IAB and IESG Selection June 2004

     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.
     None of the Chair, liaisons, or advisors vote on the selection of
     candidates.  They do vote on all other issues before the
     committee unless otherwise specified in this document.
 4.  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.

Galvin Best Current Practice [Page 11] RFC 3777 IAB and IESG Selection June 2004

 5.  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.
 6.  A Chair, in consultation with the Internet Society President, may
     appoint a temporary substitute for the Chair position.
     There are a variety of ordinary circumstances that may arise from
     time to time that could result in a Chair being unavailable to
     oversee the activities of the committee.  The Chair, in
     consultation with the Internet Society President, may appoint a
     substitute from a pool comprised of the liaisons currently
     serving on the committee and the prior year's Chair or designee.
     Any such appointment must be temporary and does not absolve the
     Chair of any or all responsibility for ensuring the nominating
     committee completes its assigned duties in a timely fashion.
 7.  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

Galvin Best Current Practice [Page 12] RFC 3777 IAB and IESG Selection June 2004

     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.
 8.  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.
 9.  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.
 10. 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

Galvin Best Current Practice [Page 13] RFC 3777 IAB and IESG Selection June 2004

     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.
 11. Voting volunteers are responsible for completing the tasks of the
     nominating committee in a timely fashion.
     Each voting volunteer is expected to participate in all
     activities of the nominating committee with a level of effort
     approximately equal to all other voting volunteers.  Specific
     tasks to be completed are established and managed by the Chair
     according to rules stated elsewhere in this document.
 12. 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.
 13. The Chair obtains the list of IESG and IAB 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.
     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.
 14. Members of the IETF community must have attended at least 3 of
     the last 5 IETF meetings in order to volunteer.
     The 5 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.

Galvin Best Current Practice [Page 14] RFC 3777 IAB and IESG Selection June 2004

     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.
 15. Members of the Internet Society Board of Trustees, sitting
     members of the IAB, and sitting members of the IESG may not
     volunteer to serve on the nominating committee.
 16. 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 1 week prior to the date
     on which the random selection will occur.
     The pool of volunteers must be enumerated or otherwise indicated
     according to the needs of the selection method to be used.
     The announcement must specify the data that will be used as input
     to the selection method.  The method must depend on random data
     whose value is not known or available until the date on which the
     random selection will occur.
     It must be possible to independently verify that the selection
     method used is both fair and unbiased.  A method is fair if each
     eligible volunteer is equally likely to be selected.  A method is
     unbiased if no one can influence its outcome in favor of a
     specific outcome.
     It must be possible to repeat the selection method, either
     through iteration or by restarting in such a way as to remain
     fair and unbiased.  This is necessary to replace selected
     volunteers should they become unavailable after selection.
     The selection method must produce an ordered list of volunteers.
     One possible selection method is described in RFC 2777 [1].
 17. The Chair randomly selects the 10 voting volunteers from the pool
     of names of volunteers and announces the members of the
     nominating committee.

Galvin Best Current Practice [Page 15] RFC 3777 IAB and IESG Selection June 2004

     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 1 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 1 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.
  • 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.
  • 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.

Galvin Best Current Practice [Page 16] RFC 3777 IAB and IESG Selection June 2004

  • 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 1 day
        between the announcement of the iteration and the selection
        process.
     After at least 1 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.
 18. 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.
  • Setting up a regular teleconference schedule.
  • Setting up an internal web site.
  • Setting up a mailing list for internal discussions.
  • Setting up an email address for receiving community input.
  • Establishing operational procedures.
  • Establishing milestones in order to monitor the progress of

the selection process.

5. Nominating Committee Operation

 The following rules apply to the operation of the nominating
 committee.  If necessary, a paragraph discussing the interpretation
 of each rule is included.
 The rules are organized approximately in the order in which they
 would be invoked.
 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.

Galvin Best Current Practice [Page 17] RFC 3777 IAB and IESG Selection June 2004

     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.
 2.  The completion of the process of selecting candidates to be
     confirmed by their respective confirming body is due within 3
     months.
     The completion of the selection process is due at least two
     month's prior to the First IETF.  This ensures the nominating
     committee has sufficient time to complete the confirmation
     process.
 3.  The completion of the process of confirming the candidates is due
     within 1 month.
     The completion of the confirmation process is due at least one
     month prior to the First IETF.
 4.  The Chair must establish for the nominating committee a set of
     milestones for the candidate selection and confirmation process.
     There is a defined time period during which the candidate
     selection and confirmation process must be completed.  The Chair
     must establish a set of milestones which, if met in a timely
     fashion, will result in the completion of the process on time.
     The Chair should allow time for iterating the activities of the
     committee if one or more candidates is not confirmed.
     The Chair should ensure that all committee members are aware of
     the milestones.
 5.  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.
 6.  At least a quorum of committee members must participate in a
     vote.

Galvin Best Current Practice [Page 18] RFC 3777 IAB and IESG Selection June 2004

     Only voting volunteers vote on a candidate selection.  For a
     candidate selection vote a quorum is comprised of at least 7 of
     the voting volunteers.
     At all other times a quorum is present if at least 75% of the
     nominating committee members are participating.
 7.  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.
     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 9 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.

Galvin Best Current Practice [Page 19] RFC 3777 IAB and IESG Selection June 2004

     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.
 8.  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.
 9.  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.
 10. 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.
 11. 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

Galvin Best Current Practice [Page 20] RFC 3777 IAB and IESG Selection June 2004

     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 or
     IAB position during the previous two years are not eligible to be
     considered for filling any open position.
 12. The nominating committee selects candidates based on its
     understanding of the IETF community's consensus of the
     qualifications required to fill the open positions.
     The intent of this rule is to ensure that the nominating
     committee consults with a broad base of the IETF community for
     input to its deliberations.  In particular, the nominating
     committee must determine if the desired expertise for the open
     positions matches its understanding of the qualifications desired
     by the IETF community.
     The consultations are permitted to include names of nominees, if
     all parties to the consultation agree to observe the same
     confidentiality rules as the nominating committee itself.
     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,
     and working group chairs, especially those in the areas with open
     positions.
     Only voting volunteer members vote to select candidates.
 13. 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.

Galvin Best Current Practice [Page 21] RFC 3777 IAB and IESG Selection June 2004

     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.
 14. 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 either or both of a brief resume of the
     candidate and a brief summary of the deliberations of the
     nominating committee.
 15. 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.

Galvin Best Current Practice [Page 22] RFC 3777 IAB and IESG Selection June 2004

     The nominating committee must ensure that all confirmed
     candidates are prepared to serve prior to announcing their
     confirmation.
 16. The nominating committee should archive the information it has
     collected or produced for a period of time not to exceed its
     term.
     The purpose of the archive is to assist the nominating committee
     should it be necessary for it to fill a mid-term vacancy.
     The existence of an archive, how it is implemented, and what
     information to archive is at the discretion of the committee.
     The decision must be approved by a quorum of the voting volunteer
     members.
     The implementation of the archive should make every reasonable
     effort to ensure that the confidentiality of the information it
     contains is maintained.

6. Dispute Resolution Process

 The dispute resolution process described here is to be used as
 indicated elsewhere in this document.  Its applicability in other
 circumstances is beyond the scope of this document.
 The nominating committee operates under a strict rule of
 confidentiality.  For this reason when process issues arise it is
 best to make every reasonable effort to resolve them within the
 committee.  However, when circumstances do not permit this or no
 resolution is forthcoming, the process described here is to be used.
 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.

Galvin Best Current Practice [Page 23] RFC 3777 IAB and IESG Selection June 2004

 5.  The process should be completed within two weeks.
 The process is as follows:
 1.  The party seeking resolution submits a written request (email is
     acceptable) to the Internet Society President detailing the issue
     to be resolved.
 2.  The Internet Society President appoints an arbiter to investigate
     and resolve the issue.  A self-appointment is permitted.
 3.  The arbiter investigates the issue making every reasonable effort
     to understand both sides of the issue.  Since the arbiter is
     subject to the same confidentiality obligations as all nominating
     committee members, all members are expected to cooperate fully
     with the arbiter and to provide all relevant information to the
     arbiter for review.
 4.  After consultation with the two principal parties to the issue,
     the arbiter decides on a resolution.  Whatever actions are
     necessary to execute the resolution are immediately begun and
     completed as quickly as possible.
 5.  The arbiter summarizes the issue, the resolution, and the
     rationale for the resolution for the Internet Society President.
 6.  In consultation with the Internet Society President, the arbiter
     prepares a report of the dispute and its resolution.  The report
     should include all information that in the judgment of the
     arbiter does not violate the confidentiality requirements of the
     nominating committee.
 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.
 1.  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 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.

Galvin Best Current Practice [Page 24] RFC 3777 IAB and IESG Selection June 2004

     Each signature must include a full name, email address, and
     primary company or organization affiliation.
     The IETF Secretariat is responsible for confirming that each
     signatory is qualified to be a voting member of a nominating
     committee.  A valid petition must be signed by at least 20
     qualified signatories.
     The petition must include a statement of justification for the
     recall and all relevant and appropriate supporting documentation.
     The petition and its signatories must be announced to the IETF
     community.
 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 both the
     person being investigated and the parties 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.

Galvin Best Current Practice [Page 25] RFC 3777 IAB and IESG Selection June 2004

8. Changes From RFC 2727

 This section describes the substantive changes from RFC 2727, listed
 approximately in the order in which they appear in the document.
 1.  A section with definitions for words and phrases used throughout
     the document was inserted.
 2.  The role of term limits as a selection criterion was clarified.
 3.  The nominating committee must now be provided with a brief
     description of the desirable expertise for each candidate to be
     nominated for each position.
 4.  Because of the overlapping terms of successive nominating
     committees, the specific committee responsible for a mid-term
     vacancy was specified.
 5.  The characterization of the advice and consent model was revised
     to permit the confirming body to communicate with the nominating
     committee during the approval process.
 6.  A general rule was added to define that all announcements are
     made with the usual IETF Secretariat mechanism.
 7.  Details regarding the expected timeline of the selection and
     operation of the committee were made even more explicit.  An
     Appendix was added that captures all the details for the
     convenience of the reader.
 8.  The term of the nominating committee was extended to
     approximately 15 months such that it explicitly overlaps by
     approximately 3 months the next year's nominating committee's
     term.
 9.  The terms voting member and non-voting member were replaced by
     voting volunteers, liaisons, and advisors.  All members vote at
     all times except that only voting volunteers vote on a candidate
     selection.
 10. The responsibilities of the Chair, liaisons, advisors, and voting
     volunteers is now explicitly stated.
 11. Processes for recalling members of the committee were added.
 12. Liaisons and advisors are no longer required to meet the usual
     requirements for nominating committee membership.

Galvin Best Current Practice [Page 26] RFC 3777 IAB and IESG Selection June 2004

 13. The Internet Society Board of Trustees may appoint a non-voting
     liaison.
 14. The eligibility qualifications for the nominating committee were
     changed to require attendance at 3 out of 5 of the last five
     meetings, to require volunteers to submit identifying contact
     information, and to request that volunteers be familiar with IETF
     processes and procedures.
 15. Some additional clarification was added to the method used to
     select volunteers.
 16. The process for selecting the 10 voting volunteers had several
     clarifications and additional requirements added, including a
     challenge process and the requirement to disallow more than two
     volunteers with the same primary affiliation.
 17. Nominations for open positions should include both contact
     information and a description of the skills or expertise the
     nominator believes the nominee possesses.
 18. Nominees are requested to keep the nominating committee informed
     of changes in their contact information.  Editorially, the
     distinction between a nominee and candidate was emphasized.
 19. A description of a testimony to be provided with each candidate
     to a confirming body by the nominating committee is specified.
 20. The rules regarding the announcement of confirmed candidates were
     substantially rewritten to make it easier to understand.
 21. The nominating committee is permitted to keep an archive for the
     duration of its term of the information it collects and produces
     for its own internal use.
 22. A dispute resolution process for addressing process concerns was
     added.
 23. The process for recalling a sitting member of the IAB and IESG
     requires at least 20 eligible members of the IETF community to
     sign a petition requesting the recall.
 24. The section on Security Considerations was expanded.
 25. Appendix A, Oral Tradition, has been added.
 26. Appendix B, Nominating Committee Timeline, has been added as a
     convenience to the reader.

Galvin Best Current Practice [Page 27] RFC 3777 IAB and IESG Selection June 2004

9. Acknowledgements

 There have been a number of people involved with the development of
 this document over the years as it has progressed from RFC 2027
 through RFC 2282 [3] and RFC 2727 [2] to its current version.
 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:
    1996 - Guy Almes
    1997 - Geoff Huston
    1998 - Mike St. Johns
    1999 - Donald Eastlake
    2000 - Avri Doria
    2001 - Bernard Adoba
    2002 - Ted T'so
    2003 - Phil Roberts
 The bulk of the early 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 consistently contributed to the
 improvement of the first three versions of this document.

Galvin Best Current Practice [Page 28] RFC 3777 IAB and IESG Selection June 2004

 In January 2002, a new working group was formed, the Nominating
 Committee Working Group (nomcom), to revise the RFC 2727 version.
 This working group was guided by the efforts of a design team whose
 members were as follows:
    Bernard Adoba
    Harald Alvestrand - Chair of the IETF
    Leslie Daigle - Chair of the IAB
    Avri Doria - Chair of the Working Group
    James Galvin - Editor of the Document
    Joel Halpern
    Thomas Narten

10. 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.

11. Informative References

 [1] Eastlake, 3rd, D., "Publicly Verifiable Nominations Committee
     (Nomcom) Random Selection", RFC 3797, June 2004.
 [2] Galvin, J., "IAB and IESG Selection, Confirmation, and Recall
     Process: Operation of the Nominating and Recall Committees", BCP
     10, RFC 2727, February 2000.
 [3] Galvin, J., "IAB and IESG Selection, Confirmation, and Recall
     Process: Operation of the Nominating and Recall Committees", BCP
     10, RFC 2282, February 1998.

Galvin Best Current Practice [Page 29] RFC 3777 IAB and IESG Selection June 2004

Appendix A. 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.
 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.

Galvin Best Current Practice [Page 30] RFC 3777 IAB and IESG Selection June 2004

Appendix B. 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 7 months.
 It is expected to start 8 months prior to the First IETF.  The 7
 months is split between three major components of the process 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.  Three months are allotted for this process.
 3.  Third is the confirmation of the candidates by their respective
     confirming bodies.  One month is allotted for this process.
 The following figure captures the details of the milestones within
 each component.  For illustrative purposes the figure presumes the
 Friday before the First IETF is March 1.
 0.  BEGIN 8 Months Prior to First IETF (approx. July 1); Internet
     Society President appoints the Chair.  The appointment must be
     done no later than the Second IETF or 8 months prior to the First
     IETF, whichever comes first.  The Chair must be announced and
     recognized during a plenary session of the Second IETF.
 1.  The Chair establishes and announces milestones to ensure the
     timely selection of the nominating committee members.
 2.  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 and IAB open positions and descriptions from the IETF
     Executive Director.

Galvin Best Current Practice [Page 31] RFC 3777 IAB and IESG Selection June 2004

 3.  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 7 months and 2 weeks prior to the
     First IETF (approx. July 15).
 4.  After the solicitation closes the Chair announces the pool of
     volunteers and the date of the random selection, which must be at
     least 1 week in the future.  The announcement must be done no
     later than 6 months and 2 weeks prior to the First IETF (approx.
     August 15).
 5.  On the appointed day the random selection occurs and the Chair
     announces the members of the committee and the 1 week challenge
     period.  The announcement must be done no later than 6 months and
     1 week prior to the First IETF (approx. August 22).
 6.  During the challenge period the Chair contacts each of the
     committee members and confirms their availability to participate.
 7.  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 6 months prior to the First IETF (approx.
     September 1).
 8.  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 5 months prior to the First IETF (approx.
     October 1).
 9.  END the Committee Member Selection Process; BEGIN the Selection
     of Candidates; Time is at least 5 months prior to the First IETF
     (approx. October 1).
 10. 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 5 months prior to the First IETF (approx.
     October 1).
 11. Over the next 3 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 2 months prior to
     the First IETF (approx. January 1).
 12. END the Selection of Candidates; BEGIN the Confirmation of
     Candidates; Time is at least 2 months prior to the First IETF
     (approx. January 1);

Galvin Best Current Practice [Page 32] RFC 3777 IAB and IESG Selection June 2004

 13. The committee presents its candidates to their respective
     confirming bodies.  The presentation must be done no later than 2
     months prior to the First IETF (approx. January 1).
 14. The confirming bodies have 1 month to deliberate and, in
     communication with the nominating committee, accept or reject
     candidates.
 15. The Chair announces the confirmed candidates.  The announcement
     must be done no later than 1 month prior to the First IETF
     (approx. February 1).

Author's Address

 James M. Galvin (editor)
 eList eXpress LLC
 607 Trixsam Road
 Sykesville, MD  21784
 US
 Phone: +1 410-549-4619
 Fax:   +1 410-795-7978
 EMail: galvin+ietf@elistx.com
 URI:   http://www.elistx.com/

Galvin Best Current Practice [Page 33] RFC 3777 IAB and IESG Selection June 2004

Full Copyright Statement

 Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2004).  This document is subject
 to the rights, licenses and restrictions contained in BCP 78, and
 except as set forth therein, the authors retain all their rights.
 This document and the information contained herein are provided on an
 "AS IS" basis and THE CONTRIBUTOR, THE ORGANIZATION HE/SHE REPRESENTS
 OR IS SPONSORED BY (IF ANY), THE INTERNET SOCIETY AND THE INTERNET
 ENGINEERING TASK FORCE DISCLAIM 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.

Intellectual Property

 The IETF takes no position regarding the validity or scope of any
 Intellectual Property Rights or other rights that might be claimed to
 pertain to the implementation or use of the technology described in
 this document or the extent to which any license under such rights
 might or might not be available; nor does it represent that it has
 made any independent effort to identify any such rights.  Information
 on the procedures with respect to rights in RFC documents can be
 found in BCP 78 and BCP 79.
 Copies of IPR disclosures made to the IETF Secretariat and any
 assurances of licenses to be made available, or the result of an
 attempt made to obtain a general license or permission for the use of
 such proprietary rights by implementers or users of this
 specification can be obtained from the IETF on-line IPR repository at
 http://www.ietf.org/ipr.
 The IETF invites any interested party to bring to its attention any
 copyrights, patents or patent applications, or other proprietary
 rights that may cover technology that may be required to implement
 this standard.  Please address the information to the IETF at ietf-
 ipr@ietf.org.

Acknowledgement

 Funding for the RFC Editor function is currently provided by the
 Internet Society.

Galvin Best Current Practice [Page 34]

/data/webs/external/dokuwiki/data/pages/rfc/rfc3777.txt · Last modified: 2004/06/14 21:51 (external edit)