[Note that this file is a concatenation of more than one RFC.]





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]

=========================================================================





Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF)                        S. Dawkins
Request for Comments: 8318                                Wonder Hamster
BCP: 10                                                     January 2018
Updates: 7437
Category: Best Current Practice
ISSN: 2070-1721


    IAB, IESG, and IAOC Selection, Confirmation, and Recall Process:
               IAOC Advisor for the Nominating Committee

Abstract

   This specification formalizes an ad hoc practice used to provide
   advice to the IETF Nominating Committee (NomCom) about the operations
   of the IETF Administrative Oversight Committee (IAOC).

   This document updates RFC 7437.

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 7841.

   Information about the current status of this document, any errata,
   and how to provide feedback on it may be obtained at
   https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8318.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2018 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
   (https://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.




Dawkins                   Best Current Practice                 [Page 1]

RFC 8318                 IAOC Advisor for NomCom            January 2018


Table of Contents

   1.  Introduction  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
   2.  Background on 'IAOC Liaisons' to Nominating Committees  . . .   3
   3.  BCP Text Changes  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
     3.1.  Change to Section 4.3 of RFC 7437, 'Structure'  . . . . .   4
   4.  Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
   5.  IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
   6.  Normative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
   Appendix A.  Discussion Points  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
     A.1.  Why Is This Role an Advisor?  . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
     A.2.  Why Is This Role Not a Liaison? . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
     A.3.  Why Is This Role Not Required to Be a Sitting IAOC
           Member? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8
     A.4.  Why Does the Nominating Committee Request an IAOC
           Advisor?  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8
   Acknowledgements  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   9
   Author's Address  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   9

































Dawkins                   Best Current Practice                 [Page 2]

RFC 8318                 IAOC Advisor for NomCom            January 2018


1.  Introduction

   This specification formalizes an ad hoc practice used to provide
   advice to the IETF Nominating Committee (NomCom) about the operations
   of the IAOC (described in [RFC4071]).

   This document updates [RFC7437].

   Proposed future changes to BCP 10 should be discussed on the public
   IETF NomCom discussion mailing list, at
   <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf-nomcom>.

2.  Background on 'IAOC Liaisons' to Nominating Committees

   When RFC 7437 [RFC7437] was approved, it explicitly charged the
   nominating committee with selecting and reviewing certain members of
   the IAOC.  However, [RFC7437] did not provide for the IAOC to send a
   liaison to the nominating committee.

   This was not thought to be an obstacle because [RFC7437] allowed any
   committee member to propose a liaison from the IAOC:

      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.

   Beginning in 2010, the IAOC provided a liaison to each nominating
   committee.  In 2016, the IAOC did not provide a liaison because the
   nominating committee was not appointing an IAOC member.  The previous
   nominating committee had filled a mid-term vacancy (using the process
   described in Section 3.5. of [RFC7437]) by appointing an IAOC member
   for a term longer than two years.  In 2017, the NomCom was selecting
   an IAOC member, but the opportunity to request a liaison from the
   IAOC was overlooked, because this practice wasn't part of the
   documented process in [RFC7437].

   This specification adds the previously ad hoc role to [RFC7437] so
   that future nominating committees will be less likely to overlook it.

   Although past ad hoc practice has characterized this role as a
   "liaison", this specification labels the role as an "advisor".  The
   rationale for this change in nomenclature is provided in
   Appendix A.1.





Dawkins                   Best Current Practice                 [Page 3]

RFC 8318                 IAOC Advisor for NomCom            January 2018


3.  BCP Text Changes

   This section provides the updated BCP text for [RFC7437].

   For each OLD text selection, NEW text is provided that replaces the
   OLD text in [RFC7437].

3.1.  Change to Section 4.3 of RFC 7437, 'Structure'

   OLD

      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.

   NEW

      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.

      Committee members are encouraged to propose the addition of an
      advisor who is knowledgeable about the operations of the IAOC,
      whether or not that nominating committee is reviewing an IAOC
      position.  The nominating committee may choose to ask the IAOC to
      suggest an advisor who is knowledgeable about IAOC operations but
      may select any advisor they vote to approve.

4.  Security Considerations

   This document updates an IETF process BCP and has no direct Internet
   security implications.

5.  IANA Considerations

   This document has no IANA actions.











Dawkins                   Best Current Practice                 [Page 4]

RFC 8318                 IAOC Advisor for NomCom            January 2018


6.  Normative References

   [RFC4071]  Austein, R., Ed. and B. Wijnen, Ed., "Structure of the
              IETF Administrative Support Activity (IASA)", BCP 101,
              RFC 4071, DOI 10.17487/RFC4071, April 2005,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4071>.

   [RFC7437]  Kucherawy, M., Ed., "IAB, IESG, and IAOC Selection,
              Confirmation, and Recall Process: Operation of the
              Nominating and Recall Committees", BCP 10, RFC 7437,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC7437, January 2015,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7437>.







































Dawkins                   Best Current Practice                 [Page 5]

RFC 8318                 IAOC Advisor for NomCom            January 2018


Appendix A.  Discussion Points

   This section preserves discussions and explanations that came up
   during document discussions.  Ordinarily, this section might be
   deleted during the evaluation process, but some questions came up
   repeatedly, so the editor has included them for anyone who also
   shares those questions.

A.1.  Why Is This Role an Advisor?

   The editor of this document briefly considered proposing a new and
   IAOC-specific role to [RFC7437] but considered such a proposal to be
   complex.  Anticipating every corner case in IETF process BCPs is
   challenging and prone to error, and as this specification was being
   written, the IETF Chair was sponsoring a design team reviewing all
   aspects of the IETF Administrative Support Activity (IASA).
   Therefore, the structure and membership of the IAOC itself could
   change in the near future.  Instead, the specification describes how
   the nominating committee requests advisors and builds on mature text
   that has survived many nominating committee cycles.

   After choosing to reuse existing roles defined in [RFC7437], the
   definition of "advisor" in Section 4.9 of [RFC7437] seemed
   appropriate.

      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.

   The position described in this specification could be filled by an
   advisor who would be a non-voting member of the nominating committee,
   who is knowledgeable about the operations of the IAOC, and who has
   duties that could evolve over time as the IAOC itself evolves.

   The only difference between this advisor that requires an update to
   [RFC7437], and any other advisor is that committee members are
   explicitly encouraged to suggest that this advisor be appointed as
   described in this specification.  The text updating [RFC7437] is
   found in Section 3.











Dawkins                   Best Current Practice                 [Page 6]

RFC 8318                 IAOC Advisor for NomCom            January 2018


A.2.  Why Is This Role Not a Liaison?

   Discussions on the IETF NomCom mailing list led to the recognition
   that "liaison" was not the best description of this role.

   The role of liaison defined in Section 4.7 of [RFC7437] places some
   significant obligations on liaisons beyond what is necessary for
   someone to answer questions from the nominating committee about the
   IAOC.  These obligations include the following:

   o  Liaisons are responsible for ensuring the nominating committee in
      general and the Chair in particular execute their assigned duties
      in the best interest of the IETF community.

   o  Liaisons from the IESG, IAB, and Internet Society Board of
      Trustees (if one is appointed) are expected to review the
      operation and execution process of the nominating committee and to
      report any concerns or issues to the Chair of the nominating
      committee immediately.  If they cannot resolve the issue between
      themselves, liaisons must report it according to the dispute
      resolution process stated elsewhere in this document.

   o  Liaisons may have other nominating committee responsibilities as
      required by their respective organizations or requested by the
      nominating committee; such responsibilities may not conflict with
      any other provisions of this document.

   Finally, as mentioned in Section 4.6 of [RFC7437], all of the
   liaisons are included in the pool of people who are eligible to be
   selected as a replacement for a Chair.

      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.

   Note: During discussion of this specification, we noted that any
   liaison would be part of the pool of potential substitute nominating
   committee Chairs.  It wasn't clear to the discussion participants
   whether there was an intentional decision to make liaisons voted onto
   the nominating committee eligible to be substitute Chairs.  That
   potential change is out of scope for this specification but may be a
   conversation worth having separately.






Dawkins                   Best Current Practice                 [Page 7]

RFC 8318                 IAOC Advisor for NomCom            January 2018


   All of these obligations are important, but there are always at least
   two full liaisons from the confirming bodies that are already
   responsible for those responsibilities.  It is simply not necessary
   to make the job of helping the nominating committee understand the
   role and operational practices of the IAOC more demanding than it
   must be.

   So, requiring the IAOC to name a formal liaison to the nominating
   committee isn't justified.

A.3.  Why Is This Role Not Required to Be a Sitting IAOC Member?

   In addition to the reasons given in Appendix A.2, the requirement
   that the IAB and IESG liaisons to the nominating committee be sitting
   members of the organizations they represent, whose positions are not
   being reviewed by this nominating committee, is especially
   challenging for the IAOC.

   Many IAOC positions are filled by members who are already members of
   IETF leadership and are subject to review by the nominating
   committee.  This means that limiting an IAOC liaison to one of the
   sitting members would mean that in some years the only individuals
   eligible to serve as liaison for the nominating committee would be
   sitting members of the IAOC that a) were appointed by the previous
   nominating committee and are not being by the current nominating
   committee, or b) were appointed by the IAB or IESG and are not being
   reviewed by the current IAB or IESG.  "Eligible" does not also mean
   "willing and able to serve", so it is possible that an IAOC might
   find itself with no sitting member to send as advisor in some years.

   Although all IAOC liaisons to the nominating committee have served as
   sitting members of the IAOC, given 10 years of IAOC operation, this
   specification assumes that other members of the community have
   sufficient experience to provide guidance if the IAOC chooses to
   suggest such a person.  If any given IAOC thought that was important,
   they could certainly continue to suggest sitting members, but if no
   sitting member was willing and able to serve, the IAOC would be free
   to do the next best thing and would likely be the best qualified
   group to decide who to send.

A.4.  Why Does the Nominating Committee Request an IAOC Advisor?

   This specification could have described the mechanism in one of two
   ways:

   o  the IAOC could simply provide the name of the advisor to the
      nominating committee, or




Dawkins                   Best Current Practice                 [Page 8]

RFC 8318                 IAOC Advisor for NomCom            January 2018


   o  the nominating committee could request the name of an advisor from
      the IAOC.

   Either choice could work.  The reason that this specification chose
   to have the nominating committee make the first move is that this is
   more similar to the way other advisors to the nominating committee
   are selected, except that the nominating committee is asking the IAOC
   for a suggestion before inviting the advisor to join the nominating
   committee.

   The suggestion is, in fact, a suggestion; the nominating committee
   still votes to invite this advisor as they would vote to invite any
   advisor, as described in Section 4.3 of [RFC7437].

Acknowledgements

   Thanks to Adrian Farrel, Alissa Cooper, Andy Malis, Alvaro Retana,
   Joel Halpern, John Klensin, Leslie Daigle, Michael Richardson, Robert
   Sparks, Russ Housley, S.  Moonesamy, Scott Bradner, Stephen Farrell,
   and Ted Hardie for providing feedback on early draft versions of this
   document.

   The input provided by Joel Halpern (2008-2009 nominating committee
   Chair) and Michael Richardson (2014-2015 nominating committee Chair)
   is especially appreciated because only a few people can provide a
   nominating committee Chair's perspective on how useful representation
   from the IAOC has been in practice.

Author's Address

   Spencer Dawkins
   Wonder Hamster Internetworking LLC

   Email: spencerdawkins.ietf@gmail.com

















Dawkins                   Best Current Practice                 [Page 9]

