GENWiki

Premier IT Outsourcing and Support Services within the UK

User Tools

Site Tools

Problem, Formatting or Query -  Send Feedback

Was this page helpful?-10+1


rfc:rfc7437

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]

/data/webs/external/dokuwiki/data/pages/rfc/rfc7437.txt · Last modified: 2015/01/07 01:54 (external edit)