[Docs] [txt|pdf|xml|html] [Tracker] [Email] [Diff1] [Diff2] [Nits]

Versions: 00 01 02 03 04 05 06 RFC 5680

Network Working Group                                    S. Dawkins, Ed.
Internet-Draft                                              Huawei (USA)
Updates: 3777 (if approved)                                 June 3, 2009
Intended status: BCP
Expires: December 5, 2009


   Nominating Committee Process: Open Disclosure of Willing Nominees
                    draft-dawkins-nomcom-openlist-04

Status of this Memo

   This Internet-Draft is submitted to IETF in full conformance with the
   provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.

   Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
   Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups.  Note that
   other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet-
   Drafts.

   Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
   and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
   time.  It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
   material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."

   The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at
   http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt.

   The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at
   http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html.

   This Internet-Draft will expire on December 5, 2009.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2009 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 in effect on the date of
   publication of this document (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info).
   Please review these documents carefully, as they describe your rights
   and restrictions with respect to this document.

Abstract

   This document updates RFC 3777, Section 3, Bullet 6 to allow a
   Nominating and Recall Commitee to disclose the list of nominees who



Dawkins                 Expires December 5, 2009                [Page 1]

Internet-Draft                NomCom Issues                    June 2009


   are willing to be considered to serve in positions the committee is
   responsible for filling.


Table of Contents

   1.  Introduction  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
   2.  Current Rules on Confidentiality  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
   3.  Problems with Existing Rules  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
   4.  Asking the Entire Community for Feedback  . . . . . . . . . . . 4
   5.  Publishing a Nominee List . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
   6.  Concerns About Open Nominee Lists . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
   7.  Updated text from RFC 3777  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
   8.  Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
   9.  IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
   10. Acknowledgements  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
   11. Normative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
   Author's Address  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8

































Dawkins                 Expires December 5, 2009                [Page 2]

Internet-Draft                NomCom Issues                    June 2009


1.  Introduction

   The Internet Engineering Steering Group (IESG), the Internet
   Architecture Board (IAB), and at-large IETF representatives to the
   IETF Administrative Oversight Committee (IAOC) are selected by a
   "Nominating and Recall Committee" (universally abbreviated as
   "NomCom").  [RFC3777] defines how the NomCom is selected, and the
   processes it follows as it selects candidates for these positions.

   The NomCom is responsible for filling positions across the breadth of
   the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF).  The NomCom needs
   relevant information about nominees being considered for these
   positions, but current [RFC3777] requirements for confidentiality
   limit the ability of the NomCom to solicit that information.  The
   process change described in this document allows the NomCom to openly
   solicit information about nominees who are willing to be considered.


2.  Current Rules on Confidentiality

   [RFC3777] is the latest in a series of revisions to the NomCom
   process, and it describes the confidential nature of NomCom
   deliberations in section 3, "General", bullet 6, which states:

      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.


3.  Problems with Existing Rules

   There are two problems with existing practice - nominee lists aren't
   as confidential as [RFC3777] would lead the reader to believe, but
   they aren't visible to the entire IETF community, either.

   Since at least 1996, most NomComs have sent out a "short list" of



Dawkins                 Expires December 5, 2009                [Page 3]

Internet-Draft                NomCom Issues                    June 2009


   nominees under consideration to a variety of audiences.  The target
   audiences differ from year to year, but have included members of
   specific leadership bodies, working group chairs in a specific area
   (for IESG positions), all working group chairs (for IAB and IAOC
   positions), and all document authors.  The combined target audience
   for all short lists includes multiple hundreds of recipients - recent
   NomComs have sent out about 1500 requests for short list feedback.

   This practice is unavoidable, because most NomCom members will not
   have personal experience with most nominees for most positions, but
   it is periodically challenged because it's not explicitly allowed as
   an exception to the blanket requirement for confidentiality.

   In an attempt to maintain the required level of confidentiality, past
   NomComs have also included "ringers" (as "padding") on the short list
   - nominees who are NOT under active consideration for a specific
   position.  Since anyone who sees the short list does not know who the
   ringers are, consciencious IETF participants also provide feedback on
   nominees who have already declined.  This is a waste of precious
   IETF-participant cycles, and there are widespread reports that strict
   confidentiality about which candidates are "real", and which are
   included as "padding", is not successfully maintained in practice.

   Even if confidentiality about padding is maintained, the community is
   aware that some nominees on the short list aren't under active
   consideration.  In some cases, people guess incorrectly that an
   actual nominee is part of the padding, and don't provide needed
   feedback to NomCom about a nominee who is actively being considered.

   We also note that the practice of publishing a "short list" penalizes
   IETF participants who aren't members of one of the target audiences
   being surveyed - they have no way of knowing who is being considered,
   except for incumbent(s), and have little incentive to provide
   feedback to NomCom on individuals who might not even be nominees.


4.  Asking the Entire Community for Feedback

   NomComs are not required to ask for community input at all, but at
   the current IETF scale, many NomComs DO request community input,
   because members do not have personal experience with all nominees for
   all positions under review.

   We assume that asking the larger community for feedback about these
   nominees is preferable to NomCom members without personal experience
   simply deferring to the members of the NomCom who DO have personal
   experience with specific nominees.




Dawkins                 Expires December 5, 2009                [Page 4]

Internet-Draft                NomCom Issues                    June 2009


   We assume that asking for feedback from the entire community is
   preferable to asking for feedback from large segments of the
   community, while keeping the rest of the community "in the dark".


5.  Publishing a Nominee List

   In proposing that a nominee list be published as part of NomCom's
   request for feedback from the community, we considered three
   possibilities:

   1.  Asking for feedback on all nominees, whether they are willing to
       be considered or not.

   2.  Asking for feedback on all nominees who are willing to be
       considered.

   3.  Asking for feedback on the nominees that NomCom is seriously
       considering (the "short list").

   Asking for feedback on nominees who are not willing to be considered
   is a waste of precious IETF-participant cycles, and may make it less
   likely that NomCom would receive feedback on some nominees who ARE
   willing to be considered.

   Asking for feedback on all nominees who are willing to be considered
   allows the community to point out specific strengths and weaknesses
   of all willing nominees, and this feedback should be useful to NomCom
   in deciding which nominees to seriously consider.  It also allows
   NomCom to receive feedback on nominees who might not appear on a
   "short list" initially, in the event that a strong nominee is
   suddenly unwilling or unable to serve.

   We also note that the list of willing nominees would include
   incumbents who are willing to be considered for an additional term.


6.  Concerns About Open Nominee Lists

   This section acknowledges possible concerns about publishing open
   nominee lists in previous discussions.

   One concern is that nominees who are willing to be considered if the
   nominee list is not published, would not be willing to be considered
   if the nominee list is published.  This reluctance might be cultural,
   the result of personal pride, or the result of the fear of
   retribution, for a nominee being considered as a replacement for the
   nominee's managing Area Director (this concern is usually raised in



Dawkins                 Expires December 5, 2009                [Page 5]

Internet-Draft                NomCom Issues                    June 2009


   an IESG context).

   We note that (for example) the Internet Architecture Board publishes
   the nominee list for their representative to the Internet Society
   Board of Trustees, without apparent ill effects, but we are also
   willing to accept that a NomCom might consider nominees whose names
   have not been announced, for a variety of reasons, if this is the
   right thing to do.

   Another concern is that publishing the nominee list publicly would
   lead to "lobbying", public statements supporting nominees on the IETF
   mailing list, etc.

   We note that nominees know they are under consideration and can
   "lobby" today, by telling people they are willing to be considered
   and asking them to provide feedback to NomCom.  Several nominees
   (both incumbents and non-incumbents) have posted statements of
   candidacy to the IETF Discussion mailing list in recent years, for
   example.


7.  Updated text from RFC 3777

   At the end of the three paragraphs in [RFC3777], section 3,
   "General", bullet 6, which are currently:

      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.

   add the following paragraphs:

      The list of nominees willing to be considered for positions under
      review in the current NomCom cycle is not confidential.  The
      NomCom may publish a list of names of nominees who are willing to
      be considered for positions under review to the community, in



Dawkins                 Expires December 5, 2009                [Page 6]

Internet-Draft                NomCom Issues                    June 2009


      order to obtain feedback from the community on these nominees.

      The NomCom may publish an updated list if the NomCom considers
      this necessary.  For example, the NomCom might publish an updated
      list if the NomCom identifies errors/omissions in a previously-
      published version of the public list, or if the NomCom finds it
      necessary to call for additional nominees, and these nominees
      indicate a willingness to be considered before NomCom has
      completed its deliberations.

      The list of nominees published for a specific position should
      contain only the names of nominees who are willing to be
      considered for the position under review.

      Feedback on nominees should always be provided privately to
      NomCom.  Nominees should not solicit support, and other IETF
      community members should not post statements of support/
      non-support for nominees in any public forum.


8.  Security Considerations

   This specification describes issues with the current IETF Nominating
   Committee process ([RFC3777]) and proposes an update to allow the
   NomCom to solicit feedback from the entire community on nominees
   under consideration.  No security considerations apply.


9.  IANA Considerations

   No IANA actions are requested in this specification.


10.  Acknowledgements

   The editor thanks the following folks who have provided useful
   observations and guidance on previous versions of this draft: Fred
   Baker, Ross Callon, Brian Carpenter, Leslie Daigle, Lars Eggert,
   Robert Elz, Joel Halpern, Bernie Hoeneisen, John Klensin, Barry
   Leiba, Danny McPherson, S. Moonesamy, and Thomas Narten.

   The editor also thanks IETF plenary meeting participants who have
   provided useful feedback on previous versions of this draft.


11.  Normative References

   [RFC3777]  Galvin, J., "IAB and IESG Selection, Confirmation, and



Dawkins                 Expires December 5, 2009                [Page 7]

Internet-Draft                NomCom Issues                    June 2009


              Recall Process: Operation of the Nominating and Recall
              Committees", BCP 10, RFC 3777, June 2004.


Author's Address

   Spencer Dawkins (editor)
   Huawei Technologies (USA)

   Phone: +1 214 755 3870
   Email: spencer@wonderhamster.org








































Dawkins                 Expires December 5, 2009                [Page 8]


Html markup produced by rfcmarkup 1.109, available from https://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcmarkup/