RFC 3777

IAB and IESG Selection, Confirmation, and Recall Process: Operation of the Nominating and Recall Committees

📅 published June 2004, from ietf

RFC 3777 💖

okay bestie, so this is RFC 3777 🎀, a Best Current Practice (BCP 10) written by J. Galvin, Ed. from eList eXpress LLC, dated June 2004 🌸. It obsoletes RFC 2727 ✨. The whole thing is about how the IAB and IESG pick, confirm, and recall their members 👑. Part 1 covers the front matter, the intro, definitions, and the first chunk of General rules 🫶.

Status of this Memo 📝

okay so this bit says this document specifies an Internet Best Current Practices for the Internet Community, and it's literally asking for discussion and suggestions for improvements 🦋. Distribution of this memo is unlimited, so share away 💅.

Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2004). 🌈

Abstract 🔮

the process for how members of the IAB and IESG get selected, confirmed, and recalled is specified here 💜. This doc is a self-consistent, organized compilation of the process as it was known at the time of publication, so it's the snapshot from when it came out 📸.

Table of Contents 🗂️

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

1. Introduction 🎀

okay so this doc is a revision of and supercedes RFC 2727 [2] 💅. It's a complete spec for how members of the IAB and IESG get selected, confirmed, and recalled, as of the date it was approved ✨.

These two assumptions still hold for this spec 🧚:

  1. The Internet Research Task Force (IRTF) and Internet Research Steering Group (IRSG) are not a part of the process described here.
  2. The organization (and re-organization) of the IESG is not a part of the process described here.

the time frames here use IETF meetings as the frame of reference 🍓. They assume the IETF meets three times per calendar year, with roughly equal amounts of time between them. The meetings get called the First IETF, Second IETF, or Third IETF as needed 🗓️.

the next section is a glossary of the words and phrases used all over this doc, with their intended meanings 📖.

The majority of this document is split into four major topics 🌈:

  • General: a set of rules and constraints that apply to the selection and confirmation process as a whole.
  • Nominating Committee Selection: the process by which the volunteers who will serve on the committee get recognized.
  • Nominating Committee Operation: the set of principles, rules, and constraints that guide what the nominating committee does, including the confirmation process.
  • Member Recall: the process by which the behavior of a sitting member of the IESG or IAB may be questioned, which could end with that sitting member getting removed 🙈.

A final section explains how this doc is different from its predecessor, RFC 2727 [2] 🔍.

There's also an appendix with useful facts and practices collected from previous nominating committees 🍯.

2. Definitions 📚

These words and phrases get used all over this doc, and they're listed here with their intended meanings so you don't have to guess 🫶.

  • 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 happen before the Third IETF so it's fully operational at the Third IETF 🔥. The term ends at the Third IETF (not three meetings) after the next nominating committee's term begins 😭.
  • nominee: a person who is being or has been considered for one or more open positions of the IESG or IAB.
  • sitting member: a person who is currently serving a term of membership in the IESG, IAB, or ISOC Board of Trustees.

3. General 🌸

okay so these rules apply to the process as a whole 💖. If needed, a paragraph explaining how to interpret each rule is included.

  1. The completion of the annual process is due within 7 months.

The completion of the annual process is due one month prior to the Friday of the week before the First IETF. It is expected to begin at least 8 months prior to the Friday of the week before the First IETF ⏰.

The process officially begins with the announcement of the Chair of the committee 🎉. The process officially ends when all confirmed candidates have been announced 🏁.

The annual process has three major components 🧩:

  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 when 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 🦋.

  1. The principal functions of the nominating committee are to review each open IESG and IAB position and to either nominate its incumbent or a superior candidate 👑.

Although there is no term limit for serving in any IESG or IAB position, the nominating committee may use length of service as one of its criteria for evaluating an incumbent 🕰️.

The nominating committee does not select the open positions to be reviewed; it is instructed as to which positions to review 🙅‍♀️.

The nominating committee will be given the title of the positions to be reviewed and a brief summary of the desired expertise of the candidate who 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 ✨.

  1. One-half of each of the then current IESG and IAB positions 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 each year. It is recognized that circumstances may exist that will require the nominating committee to review more or less than one-half of the current positions, e.g., if the IESG or IAB have re-organized prior to this process and created new positions, if there are an odd number of current positions, or if a member unexpectedly resigns 😳.

  1. Confirmed candidates are expected to serve at least a 2 year term 🗓️.

The intent of this rule is to ensure that members of the IESG and IAB serve the number of years that best facilitates the review of one-half of the members each year 🧠.

The term of a confirmed candidate selected according to the mid-term vacancy rules may be less than 2 years, as stated elsewhere in this document ⏳.

It is consistent with this rule for the nominating committee to choose one or more of the currently open positions to which it may assign a term of not more than 3 years, in order to ensure the ideal application of this rule in the future 🔮.

It is consistent with this rule for the nominating committee to choose one or more of the currently open positions that share responsibilities with other positions (both those being reviewed and those sitting) to which it may assign a term of not more than 3 years, to ensure that all such members will not be reviewed at the same time 🙃.

All sitting member terms end during the First IETF meeting corresponding to the end of the term for which they were confirmed. All confirmed candidate terms begin during the First IETF meeting corresponding to the beginning of the term for which they were confirmed 🎬.

For confirmed candidates of the IESG, the terms begin no later than when the currently sitting members' terms end on the last day of the meeting. A term may begin or end no sooner than the first day of the meeting and no later than the last day of the meeting, as determined by the mutual agreement of the currently sitting member and the confirmed candidate. A confirmed candidate's term may overlap the sitting member's term during the meeting as determined by their mutual agreement 🤝.

For confirmed candidates of the IAB, the terms overlap with the terms of the sitting members for the entire week of the meeting 🌼.

For candidates confirmed under the mid-term vacancy rules, the term begins as soon as possible after the confirmation ⚡.

  1. Mid-term vacancies are filled by the same rules as documented here, with four qualifications 🧁.

First, when there is only one official nominating committee, the body with the mid-term vacancy relegates the responsibility to fill the vacancy to it. If the mid-term vacancy occurs during the period of time that the term of the prior year's nominating committee overlaps with the term of the current year's nominating committee, the body with the mid-term vacancy must relegate the responsibility to fill the vacancy to the prior year's nominating committee 🧭.

Second, if the nominating committee is reconvening to fill the mid-term vacancy, then the completion of the candidate selection and confirmation process is due within 6 weeks, with all other time periods otherwise unspecified prorated accordingly ⏱️.

Third, the confirming body has two weeks from the day it is notified of a candidate to reject the candidate; otherwise, the candidate is assumed to have been confirmed 🫡.

Fourth, the term of the confirmed candidate will be either:

  1. the remainder of the term of the open position, if that remainder is not less than one year.
  2. the remainder of the term of the open position plus the next 2 year term, if that remainder is less than one year.

In both cases, a year is the period of time from a First IETF meeting to the next First IETF meeting 💜.

That's the first chunk, bestie! 🌈✨ More parts are coming, so stay tuned 💅🎀

The nominating committee and confirming body members are going to be exposed to confidential info 🙈 from their deliberations, from the people they consult, and from folks who give requested supporting info. All members and all other participants are expected to handle that info in a way that matches how sensitive it is 🔒 ✨

It's totally fine (consistent with this rule, bestie 💅) for current nominating committee members who've served on a prior nominating committee to fill the current committee in on the prior committee's deliberations and results, as needed and appropriate 🫶

  1. Unless otherwise specified, the advice and consent model is used throughout the process. Here's how it works 🦋
    1. The IETF Executive Director informs the nominating committee of the IESG and IAB positions to be reviewed. 🌸

The IESG and IAB are responsible for providing a summary of the expertise they want in the candidates selected for their respective open positions to the Executive Director. Those summaries go to the nominating committee for its consideration 📝

  1. The nominating committee selects candidates based on its understanding of the IETF community's consensus on the qualifications required, and advises each confirming body of its respective candidates 🧚
  2. The confirming bodies review their respective candidates. They may, at their discretion, communicate with the nominating committee, and then consent to some, all, or none of the candidates 💖

The sitting IAB members review the IESG candidates. 👑

The Internet Society Board of Trustees reviews the IAB candidates. 🌈

The confirming bodies conduct their review using all information and any means acceptable to them, including but not limited to the supporting information provided by the nominating committee, information known personally to members of the confirming bodies and shared within the confirming body, the results of interactions within the confirming bodies, and the confirming bodies' interpretation of what is in the best interests of the IETF community. 🔍

If all of the candidates are confirmed, the job of the nominating committee with respect to those open positions is complete. 🎉

If some or none of the candidates submitted to a confirming body are confirmed, the confirming body should communicate with the nominating committee both to explain 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. ⏰

  1. 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. 🚀

  1. The following rules apply to nominees (candidates) who are currently sitting members of the IESG or IAB, and who are not sitting in an open position being filled by the nominating committee. 🦄

The confirmation of a candidate to an open position does not automatically create a vacancy in the IESG or IAB position currently occupied by the candidate. The mid-term vacancy can not exist until, first, the candidate formally resigns from the current position and, second, the body with the vacancy formally decides for itself that it wants the nominating committee to fill the mid-term vacancy according to the rules for a mid-term vacancy documented elsewhere in this document. 🧩

The resignation should be effective as of when the term of the new position begins. The resignation may remain confidential to the IAB, IESG, and nominating committee until the confirmed candidate is announced for the new position. The process, according to rules set out elsewhere in this document, of filling the seat vacated by the confirmed candidate may begin as soon as the vacancy is publicly announced. 🤫

Filling a mid-term vacancy is a separate and independent action from the customary action of filling open positions. In particular, a nominating committee must complete its job with respect to filling the open positions and then separately proceed with the task of filling the mid-term vacancy according to the rules for a mid-term vacancy documented elsewhere in this document. ✂️

However, the following exception is permitted in the case where the candidate for an open position is currently a sitting member of the IAB. It is consistent with these rules for the announcements of a resignation of a sitting member of the IAB and of the confirmed candidate for the mid-term vacancy created by that sitting member on the IAB to all occur at the same time, as long as the actual sequence of events that occurred did so in the following order: 🎀

  • The nominating committee completes the advice and consent process for the open position being filled by the candidate currently sitting on the IAB.
  • The newly confirmed candidate resigns from their current position on the IAB.
  • The IAB with the new mid-term vacancy requests that the nominating committee fill the position.
  • The Executive Director of the IETF informs the nominating committee of the mid-term vacancy.
  • The nominating committee acts on the request to fill the mid-term vacancy.
  1. 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. 🌟

  1. The completion of the process of selecting and organizing the members of the nominating committee is due within 3 months. ⏳

The completion of the selection and organization process is due at least one month prior to the Third IETF. This ensures the nominating committee is fully operational and available for interviews and consultation during the Third IETF. 🗓️

  1. The term of a nominating committee is expected to be 15 months. 🍓

It is the intent of this rule that the end of a nominating committee's term overlap by approximately three months the beginning of the term of the next nominating committee. 🔁

The term of a nominating committee begins when its members are officially announced. The term ends at the Third IETF (not three meetings), i.e., the IETF meeting after the next nominating committee's term begins. 🏁

A term is expected to begin at least two months prior to the Third IETF to ensure the nominating committee has at least one month to get organized before preparing for the Third IETF. 🧠

A nominating committee is expected to complete any work-in-progress before it is dissolved at the end of its term. 📦

During the period of time that the terms of the nominating committees overlap, all mid-term vacancies are to be relegated to the prior year's nominating committee. The prior year's nominating committee has no other responsibilities during the overlap period. At all times other than the overlap period there is exactly one official nominating committee and it is responsible for all mid-term vacancies. 🫧

When the prior year's nominating committee is filling a mid-term vacancy during the period of time that the terms overlap, the nominating committees operate independently. However, some coordination is needed between them. Since the prior year's Chair is a non-voting advisor to the current nominating committee, the coordination is expected to be straightforward. 🤝

  1. The nominating committee comprises at least a Chair, 10 voting volunteers, 3 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. 🧚

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

  1. 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. 🙅

  1. 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 make sure the committee actually finishes its jobs, and to act in the best interests of the IETF community while doing it. 🫶✨

The appointment is due no later than the Second IETF meeting so it can be announced during a plenary session at that meeting. Finishing the appointment is necessary so the annual process can wrap up on the timeline set out elsewhere in this document. 📅💖

  1. A Chair, in consultation with the Internet Society President, may appoint a temporary substitute for the Chair position. 🧚

Ordinary stuff comes up all the time that could leave a Chair unavailable to oversee the committee's activities, so this is the backup plan. The Chair, in consultation with the Internet Society President, may appoint a substitute from a pool made up of the liaisons currently serving on the committee and the prior year's Chair or designee. 🎀

Any such appointment must be temporary, and it does not let the Chair off the hook for any or all responsibility for making sure the nominating committee completes its assigned duties in a timely fashion. 💅

  1. Liaisons are responsible for making sure the nominating committee in general, and the Chair in particular, carry out their assigned duties in the best interests of the IETF community. 👑

Liaisons are expected to represent the views of their respective organizations during the committee's deliberations. They should provide information when it is requested, or when they believe it would be helpful to the committee. 🦋

Liaisons from the IESG and IAB are expected to give the nominating committee information about the operation, responsibility, and composition of their respective bodies. 🌸

Liaisons are expected to pass questions from the committee along to their respective organizations, and to pass the answers back to the committee when the committee asks for them. 💌

Liaisons from the IESG, IAB, and Internet Society Board of Trustees (if one was appointed) are expected to review how the nominating committee operates and executes its process, and to report any concerns or issues to the Chair of the nominating committee immediately. If they can not resolve the issue between themselves, the liaisons must report it according to the dispute resolution process stated elsewhere in this document. 🚨

Liaisons from confirming bodies are expected to help the committee prepare 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 those responsibilities may not conflict with any other provisions of this document. 🌈

Liaisons do not vote on the selection of candidates. 🙅‍♀️

  1. 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. 🦋
  2. An advisor is responsible for whatever duties are specified in the invitation that resulted in the appointment. ✨

Advisors do not vote on the selection of candidates. 🫶

  1. 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 made up 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 that designation in a timely fashion, the Chair of the current year's committee may select a designee in consultation with the Internet Society President. 🧁

Picking a prior year's committee member as the designee means the experience of the prior year's deliberations is readily available to the current committee. Picking an earlier prior year Chair as the designee means the experience of being a Chair, as well as that Chair's committee deliberations, is 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. 💜

  1. Voting volunteers are responsible for completing the tasks of the nominating committee in a timely fashion. ⏰

Each voting volunteer is expected to take part in all activities of the nominating committee with a level of effort approximately equal to all the other voting volunteers. The Chair establishes and manages the specific tasks to be completed, according to rules stated elsewhere in this document. 🎯

  1. 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 process being completed on time. 🏁

  1. The Chair obtains the list of IESG and IAB positions to be reviewed, and announces it along with a call for names of volunteers from the IETF community who are willing to serve on the nominating committee. 📣

The call must give the community at least 30 days in which they may choose to volunteer to be selected for the nominating committee. ⏳

The list of open positions is published with the call so community members can choose between volunteering for an open position and volunteering for the nominating committee. 🤔

  1. Members of the IETF community must have attended at least 3 of the last 5 IETF meetings in order to volunteer. 🙋‍♀️

The 5 meetings are the five most recent meetings that ended before the date on which the call 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. 🕵️‍♀️

When volunteering, volunteers must provide their full name, email address, and primary company or organization affiliation (if any). 📝

Volunteers are expected to be familiar with the IETF processes and procedures, which are readily learned through active participation in a working group, and especially by serving as a document editor or working group chair. 🛠️

  1. Members of the Internet Society Board of Trustees, sitting members of the IAB, and sitting members of the IESG may not volunteer to serve on the nominating committee. 🙅‍♀️
  2. The Chair announces both the list of the pool of volunteers from which the 10 voting volunteers will be randomly selected, and the method that will be used to make the selection. 🎲

The announcement should be made at least 1 week before the date on which the random selection will occur. 📆

The pool of volunteers must be enumerated, or otherwise indicated, according to the needs of the selection method to be used. 🔢

The announcement must specify the data that will be used as input to the selection method. The method must depend on random data whose value is not known or available until the date on which the random selection will occur. 🌪️

It must be possible to independently verify that the selection method used is both fair and unbiased. A method is fair if each eligible volunteer is equally likely to be selected. A method is unbiased if no one can influence its outcome in favor of a specific result. ⚖️

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 so that selected volunteers can be replaced should they become unavailable after selection. 🔁

The selection method must produce an ordered list of volunteers. 📋

One possible selection method is described in RFC 2777 [1]. 🧠

  1. 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 of a volunteer is the same as that of two previously selected volunteers, that volunteer is removed from consideration and the method is repeated to identify the next eligible volunteer. 🙅‍♀️🏢

There must be at least two announcements of all members of the nominating committee. 📢📢

The first announcement should occur as soon after the random selection as is reasonable for the Chair. The community must have at least 1 week during which any member may challenge the results of the random selection. 🕰️

The challenge must be made in writing (email is acceptable) to the Chair. The Chair has 48 hours to review the challenge and offer a resolution to the member. If the member does not accept the resolution, that member may report the challenge according to the dispute resolution process stated elsewhere in this document. 🧐

If a selected volunteer, upon reading the announcement with the list of selected volunteers, finds that two or more other volunteers have the same affiliation, then the volunteer should notify the Chair, who will determine the appropriate action. 🚩

During at least the 1 week challenge period, the Chair must contact each of the members and confirm their willingness and availability to serve. The Chair should make every reasonable effort to contact each member. 📞

  • If the Chair is unable to contact a liaison, the problem is referred to the respective organization to resolve. The Chair should allow a reasonable amount of time for the organization to resolve the problem, and then may proceed without the liaison. 🫠
  • If the Chair is unable to contact an advisor, the Chair may elect to proceed without the advisor, except for the prior year's Chair, for whom the Chair must consult with the Internet Society President as stated elsewhere in this document. 🙈
  • If the Chair is unable to contact a voting volunteer, the Chair must repeat the random selection process in order to replace the unavailable volunteer. There should be at least 1 day between the announcement of the iteration and the selection process. 🔄

After at least 1 week, and after 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. 🥳💖

  1. okay so the Chair works with the committee members to get themselves organized so they can actually finish their assigned duties 💅

The committee gets about one month to self-organize 🗓️ Its to-do list during this time includes, but isn't limited to, the following:

  • setting up a regular teleconference schedule 📞
  • setting up an internal web site 🌐
  • setting up a mailing list for internal discussions 💬
  • setting up an email address for receiving community input 📥
  • establishing operational procedures 📋
  • establishing milestones so they can keep an eye on how the selection process is going 🎯

5. Nominating Committee Operation ✨

These are the rules for how the nominating committee operates 💖 If needed, each rule gets a paragraph explaining how to read it. The rules are roughly in the order you'd actually use them.

  1. Anything that isn't covered by a rule, plus any special circumstances, is up to the committee's discretion 🫶

Exceptional circumstances will pop up now and then while the committee is running normally. This rule exists to keep the committee moving forward 🚀

Any committee member MAY propose a rule for the committee to adopt. The rule MUST be approved by the committee using its established voting mechanism.

All committee members SHOULD consider whether the exception is worth mentioning in the next revision of this document, and follow up accordingly.

  1. Selecting candidates to be confirmed by their respective confirming body has to be wrapped up within 3 months ⏰

Selection has to be finished at least two months before the First IETF, which gives the committee enough breathing room to finish confirmation 🌸

  1. Confirming the candidates has to be wrapped up within 1 month ✅

Confirmation has to be finished at least one month before the First IETF.

  1. The Chair MUST establish a set of milestones for the nominating committee's candidate selection and confirmation process 🎯

There is a defined time period during which the candidate selection and confirmation process MUST be completed. The Chair MUST establish a set of milestones which, if met in a timely fashion, will result in the process finishing on time. The Chair SHOULD allow time for iterating the committee's activities if one or more candidates is not confirmed.

The Chair SHOULD ensure that all committee members are aware of the milestones.

  1. 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.

  1. 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 made up of at least 7 of the voting volunteers.

At all other times, a quorum is present if at least 75% of the nominating committee members are participating.

  1. 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 bunch of ordinary things that can leave a committee member unable to finish their duties, like health concerns, family stuff, or a change of priorities at work. A committee member MAY choose to resign for unspecified personal reasons. Also, the committee may not function well as a group if a member is 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 situation. 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 the organization to identify a replacement before proceeding.

If an advisor member other than the prior year's Chair is recalled, the committee MAY choose to proceed without the advisor. In the case of the prior year's Chair, the Internet Society President MUST be notified, and the current Chair MUST be allowed a reasonable amount of time to consult with the Internet Society President to identify a replacement before proceeding.

If a single voting volunteer position on the nominating committee is vacated, regardless of the circumstances, the committee MAY choose to proceed with only 9 voting volunteers, at its own discretion. In all other cases, a new voting member MUST be selected, and the Chair MUST repeat the random selection process, including an announcement of the iteration, prior to the actual selection as stated elsewhere in this document.

A change in the primary affiliation of a voting volunteer during the term of the nominating committee is not a cause to request that volunteer's recall, even if the change would result in more than two voting volunteers with the same affiliation.

  1. 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 make sure 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 about 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.

  1. All members of the nominating committee MAY participate in all deliberations 🦋

The point 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.

  1. 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 about the past performance of incumbents, which will be considered during the nominating committee's deliberations.

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.

  1. Any member of the IETF community MAY nominate any member of the IETF community for any open position, and the nominating committee will confirm whether that person is eligible to serve 🌟

A self-nomination is permitted.

Nominating committee members are not eligible to be considered for filling any open position by the nominating committee they serve on. They become ineligible as soon as the term of that nominating committee officially begins, and they remain ineligible for the duration of its 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 they are not otherwise disqualified.

Members of the IETF community who were recalled from any IESG or IAB position during the previous two years are not eligible to be considered for filling any open position.

  1. The nominating committee selects candidates based on its understanding of the IETF community's consensus on the qualifications required to fill the open positions 🧠

The point of this rule is to make sure the nominating committee consults a broad base of the IETF community for input to its deliberations. In particular, the nominating committee MUST determine whether the desired expertise for the open positions matches its understanding of the qualifications the IETF community wants.

The consultations are permitted to include names of nominees, if all parties to the consultation agree to observe the same confidentiality rules as the nominating committee itself.

A broad base of the community SHOULD include the existing members of the IAB and IESG, especially sitting members who share responsibilities with open positions (for example, co-Area Directors), and working group chairs, especially those in the areas with open positions.

Only voting volunteer members vote to select candidates.

  1. Nominees SHOULD be told that they are being considered, and they MUST consent to their nomination before being chosen as candidates 💌

Even though the nominating committee will make every reasonable effort to contact nominees and stay in touch with them, any nominee whose contact information changes during the process and who still wants to be considered SHOULD let the nominating committee know about the changes.

A nominee's consent MUST be in writing (email is acceptable) and MUST include a commitment to provide the resources needed to fill the open position, plus 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 happen before a nominee becomes a candidate, and it MAY happen as soon after the nomination as the nominating committee needs.

Consenting to a nomination MUST NOT imply that the nominee will be a candidate.

The nominating committee SHOULD help nominees put together justification for their employers 💼

  1. The nominating committee advises the confirming bodies of their candidates 📜, naming a single candidate for each open position and explaining how each candidate meets the qualifications of that position

For each candidate, the testimony MUST include a brief statement of the qualifications for the position being filled, which MAY be exactly the expertise that was requested. If the qualifications differ from the expertise originally requested, a brief statement explaining the difference MUST be included.

The testimony MAY include either or both of a brief résumé of the candidate and a brief summary of the nominating committee's deliberations.

  1. okay so 💖 confirmed candidates must consent to their confirmation, and rejected candidates and nominees must be notified before confirmed candidates get announced 📣.

It's not necessary to notify and get consent from all confirmed candidates together 🦋.

ngl this one is iconic 🙈. A nominee may not even know they were a candidate, so a confirming body can reject a candidate without the nominee ever finding out 💀.

Rejected nominees who consented to their nomination, and rejected candidates, must be notified before the confirmed candidates are announced 📣.

It's not necessary to announce all confirmed candidates together ✨.

The nominating committee must ensure that all confirmed candidates are ready to serve before their confirmation is announced 👑.

  1. the nominating committee should archive the information it has collected or produced for a period of time that does not exceed its term 🗂️.

The whole point of the archive is to help the committee if it ever has to fill a mid-term vacancy 🧚.

Whether there's an archive, how it's implemented, and what goes in it is up to 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 keep the information it contains confidential 🫶.

6. Dispute Resolution Process ✨

The dispute resolution process described here is to be used as indicated elsewhere in this document. Its use in other situations is outside the scope of this document 📖.

The nominating committee operates under a strict rule of confidentiality 🤫. So when process issues come up, it's best to make every reasonable effort to resolve them inside the committee. But when that isn't possible or no resolution shows up, this process is the one to use 💜.

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 when a request, as described below, is submitted to the Internet Society President 📨.
  3. As soon as the process begins, the nominating committee may continue activities that are unrelated to the issue to be resolved. The one thing it must not do is 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 goes like this 🦋:

  1. The party seeking resolution submits a written request (email is acceptable) to the Internet Society President, detailing the issue to be resolved 📝.
  2. The Internet Society President appoints an arbiter to investigate and resolve the issue. A self-appointment is permitted 🧑‍⚖️.
  3. The arbiter investigates the issue, making every reasonable effort to understand both sides. Since the arbiter has the same confidentiality obligations as all nominating committee members, everyone is expected to cooperate fully with the arbiter and provide all relevant information for review 🕵️‍♀️.
  4. After consulting the two principal parties to the issue, the arbiter decides on a resolution. Whatever actions are needed to carry out the resolution are started right away 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 arbiter's judgment, does not violate the confidentiality requirements of the nominating committee 📑.
  7. The Chair includes the dispute report when reporting on the nominating committee's activities to the IETF community 📣.

7. Member Recall 💅

The following rules apply to the recall process. Where needed, a paragraph explaining how to interpret each rule is included 🧠.

  1. At any time, at least 20 members of the IETF community who are qualified to be voting members of a nominating committee may request, by signed petition (email is acceptable) to the Internet Society President, the recall of any sitting IAB or IESG member 😤.

All individual and collective qualifications for nominating committee eligibility apply, 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 🔍.

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 📢.

  1. 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 🫶.

  1. The recall committee is created under the same rules as the nominating committee, with the added requirement that both the person being investigated and the parties requesting the recall must not be members of the recall committee in any capacity 🚧.
  2. The recall committee operates under the same rules as the nominating committee, except that there is no confirmation process 🌸.
  3. The recall committee investigates the circumstances behind the justification for the recall and votes on its findings 🔎.

The investigation must include, at minimum, both an opportunity for the member being recalled to present a written statement and consultation with third parties 🗣️.

  1. A 3/4 majority of the members who vote on the question is required for a recall ⚖️.
  2. If a sitting member is recalled, the open position is filled according to the mid-term vacancy rules 🔄.

8. Changes From RFC 2727 🎀

This section describes the substantive changes from RFC 2727, listed approximately in the order they appear in the document 🦋.

  1. A section with definitions for words and phrases used throughout the document was inserted 📚.
  2. The role of term limits as a selection criterion was clarified 🧐.
  3. The nominating committee must now be given a brief description of the desirable expertise for each candidate to be nominated for each position ✨.
  4. Because successive nominating committees have overlapping terms, the specific committee responsible for a mid-term vacancy was specified 🧩.
  5. The advice and consent model was reworded to permit the confirming body to communicate with the nominating committee during the approval process 💬.
  6. A general rule was added stating that all announcements are made through the usual IETF Secretariat mechanism 📣.
  7. Details about the expected timeline for selecting and operating the committee were made even more explicit. An Appendix was added that captures all the details for the reader's convenience 🗓️.
  8. The nominating committee's term was extended to approximately 15 months, so that it explicitly overlaps by approximately 3 months with the next year's nominating committee's term 🌙.
  9. The terms voting member and non-voting member were replaced by voting volunteers, liaisons, and advisors. All members vote at all times, except that only voting volunteers vote on a candidate selection 🗳️.
  10. The responsibilities of the Chair, liaisons, advisors, and voting volunteers are now explicitly stated 📋.
  11. Processes for recalling committee members were added 🔄.
  12. Liaisons and advisors are no longer required to meet the usual requirements for nominating committee membership 🙌.
  13. The Internet Society Board of Trustees may appoint a non-voting liaison 🌈.
  14. The eligibility qualifications for the nominating committee were changed to require attendance at 3 out of the last 5 meetings, to require volunteers to submit identifying contact information, and to request that volunteers be familiar with IETF processes and procedures 🤓.
  15. Some additional clarification was added to the method used to select volunteers 🎯.
  16. The process for selecting the 10 voting volunteers got several clarifications and additional requirements, including a challenge process and a requirement to disallow more than two volunteers with the same primary affiliation 🔐.
  17. Nominations for open positions should include both contact information and a description of the skills or expertise the nominator believes the nominee has 💌.
  18. Nominees are asked to keep the nominating committee informed of changes to their contact information. Editorially, the distinction between a nominee and a candidate was emphasized 🖊️.
  19. A description of the testimony the nominating committee must provide with each candidate to a confirming body is specified 🎙️.
  20. The rules for announcing confirmed candidates were substantially rewritten to make them easier to understand 💡.
  21. The nominating committee is permitted to keep an archive, for the duration of its term, of the information it collects and produces for its own internal use 🗄️.
  22. A dispute resolution process for addressing process concerns was added ⚖️.
  23. The process for recalling a sitting member of the IAB and IESG requires at least 20 eligible members of the IETF community to sign a petition requesting the recall ✍️.
  24. The Security Considerations section was expanded 🛡️.
  25. Appendix A, Oral Tradition, was added 🪶.
  26. Appendix B, Nominating Committee Timeline, was added as a convenience to the reader 🗓️.

9. Acknowledgements ✨

okay so this section is basically the group chat of everyone who helped this doc grow up 🌸 It started as RFC 2027, then turned into RFC 2282 [3], then RFC 2727 [2], and now it's this version. Iconic glow-up 💅

A huge chunk of the credit goes to the first three Nominating Committee Chairs 👑

1993 - Jeff Case

1994 - Fred Baker

1995 - John Curran

They were out here doing it without a documented process at all, so they were basically running on vibes and oral tradition 💀 Their work became the very first version of this document, and honestly that's so impressive 🫶

We also can't skip the chairs who got to deal with the bug discovery burden in every year after the first publication 🙈

1996 - Guy Almes

1997 - Geoff Huston

1998 - Mike St. Johns

1999 - Donald Eastlake

2000 - Avri Doria

2001 - Bernard Adoba

2002 - Ted T'so

2003 - Phil Roberts

The early credit goes mostly to the members of the POISSON Working Group, which used to be the POISED Working Group 🧚 The prose here wouldn't be half as good without their sharp, attentive reviews. Special shoutout to Scott Bradner and John Klensin, who kept making the first three versions of this document better, no cap 🫶

In January 2002, a new working group got formed: the Nominating Committee Working Group (nomcom). Its whole job was to revise the RFC 2727 version 🎀 The group was guided by a design team with these members:

Bernard Adoba

Harald Alvestrand - Chair of the IETF

Leslie Daigle - Chair of the IAB

Avri Doria - Chair of the Working Group

James Galvin - Editor of the Document

Joel Halpern

Thomas Narten

10. Security Considerations 🔐

Okay, this part is serious, bestie, so no giggling. Any selection, confirmation, or recall process has to look into the qualifications and activities of the people who are up for it. That investigation can uncover confidential or otherwise private information about candidates, and the people taking part in the process get to see it. So every person who participates in any part of the process must keep all information confidential, unless that information is explicitly identified as suitable for public dissemination 🤐

When the nominating committee decides it has to share confidential or otherwise private information with others, the sharing must be minimal. It also must include a prior commitment from everyone consulted to follow the same confidentiality rules the nominating committee itself follows 💜

11. Informative References 📚

[1] Eastlake, 3rd, D., "Publicly Verifiable Nominations Committee (Nomcom) Random Selection", RFC 3797, June 2004.

[2] Galvin, J., "IAB and IESG Selection, Confirmation, and Recall Process: Operation of the Nominating and Recall Committees", BCP 10, RFC 2727, February 2000.

[3] Galvin, J., "IAB and IESG Selection, Confirmation, and Recall Process: Operation of the Nominating and Recall Committees", BCP 10, RFC 2282, February 1998.

Appendix A. Oral Tradition 🧠

Over the years, different nominating committees have picked up things through oral tradition, passed along by liaisons. There are some consistent patterns in the process and in the information the committees consider during deliberations 👀 So we've collected some of that oral tradition here, to help future nominating committees use it 🦋

  1. It has been found that experience as an IETF Working Group Chair or an IRTF Research Group Chair is helpful, because it gives a nominee a feel for 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 comes partly from 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.) that its members represent 🌈
  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 each nominating committee understands them 🔄
  5. The number of nominating committee members with the same primary affiliation is limited, so the process doesn't look biased when it picks the IETF's leadership 👑 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 B. Nominating Committee Timeline 🗓️

Okay, this timeline is just here for your convenience, bestie 🎀 It's not the official one. It's meant to pull everything described elsewhere in this document into one place. Every effort was made to keep it consistent with the rest of the document, but if there's ever a conflict, 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 it must be completed by the First IETF of the year after the nominating committee begins its term. That's because the confirmed candidate terms begin during the week of the First IETF 💖

The whole annual process is designed to finish in 7 months, and it's expected to start 8 months before the First IETF. Those 7 months get split across three major components:

  1. First is the selection and organization of the committee members. Three months are allotted for this process.
  2. Second is the selection of the candidates by the nominating committee. Three months are allotted for this process.
  3. Third is the confirmation of the candidates by their respective confirming bodies. One month is allotted for this process.

Here's the figure with the milestones inside each component. For illustrative purposes, it assumes the Friday before the First IETF is March 1 📅

  1. BEGIN 8 Months Prior to First IETF (approx. July 1); Internet Society President appoints the Chair. The appointment must be done no later than the Second IETF or 8 months prior to the First IETF, whichever comes first. The Chair must be announced and recognized during a plenary session of the Second IETF.
  2. The Chair establishes and announces milestones to ensure the timely selection of the nominating committee members.
  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 and IAB open positions and descriptions from the IETF Executive Director.
  4. The Chair announces the solicitation for voting volunteer members, which must remain open for at least 30 days. The announcement must be done no later than 7 months and 2 weeks prior to the First IETF (approx. July 15).
  5. After the solicitation closes, the Chair announces the pool of volunteers and the date of the random selection, which must be at least 1 week in the future. The announcement must be done no later than 6 months and 2 weeks prior to the First IETF (approx. August 15).
  6. On the appointed day, the random selection occurs and the Chair announces the members of the committee and the 1 week challenge period. The announcement must be done no later than 6 months and 1 week prior to the First IETF (approx. August 22).
  7. During the challenge period, the Chair contacts each of the committee members and confirms their availability to participate.
  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 6 months prior to the First IETF (approx. September 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 5 months prior to the First IETF (approx. October 1).
  10. END the Committee Member Selection Process; BEGIN the Selection of Candidates; Time is at least 5 months prior to the First IETF (approx. October 1).
  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 5 months prior to the First IETF (approx. October 1).
  12. Over the next 3 months, the nominating committee collects input and deliberates. It should plan to conduct interviews and other consultations during the Third IETF. The committee is due to complete its candidate selection no later than 2 months prior to the First IETF (approx. January 1).
  13. END the Selection of Candidates; BEGIN the Confirmation of Candidates; Time is at least 2 months prior to the First IETF (approx. January 1);
  14. The committee presents its candidates to their respective confirming bodies. The presentation must be done no later than 2 months prior to the First IETF (approx. January 1).
  15. The confirming bodies have 1 month to deliberate and, in communication with the nominating committee, accept or reject candidates.
  16. The Chair announces the confirmed candidates. The announcement must be done no later than 1 month prior to the First IETF (approx. February 1).

Author's Address 📮

James M. Galvin (editor) is the one behind this doc, and his details are below 💌

James M. Galvin (editor)
eList eXpress LLC
607 Trixsam Road
Sykesville, MD  21784
US

Phone: +1 410-549-4619
Fax:   +1 410-795-7978
EMail: galvin+ietf@elistx.com
URI:   http://www.elistx.com/

Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2004). This document is subject to the rights, licenses and restrictions contained in BCP 78, and except as set forth therein, the authors retain all their rights.

This document and the information contained herein are provided on an "AS IS" basis and THE CONTRIBUTOR, THE ORGANIZATION HE/SHE REPRESENTS OR IS SPONSORED BY (IF ANY), THE INTERNET SOCIETY AND THE INTERNET ENGINEERING TASK FORCE DISCLAIM ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF THE INFORMATION HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.

Intellectual Property ✨

okay so, the IETF is being very clear here 💅 It takes no position on whether any Intellectual Property Rights or other rights that someone might claim over the technology in this document are valid or in scope. It also doesn't say whether any license under those rights might or might not be available, and it doesn't claim to have independently searched for any such rights. 🫣 If you want the details on how rights work for RFC documents, the answers live in BCP 78 and BCP 79 🎀

Copies of IPR disclosures sent to the IETF Secretariat are available from the IETF's online IPR repository at http://www.ietf.org/ipr. That's also where you'll find any assurances of licenses that have been offered, plus the results of any attempt to get a general license or permission for implementers or users of this specification to use the proprietary rights involved. 📚

The IETF also invites anyone to flag copyrights, patents, patent applications, or other proprietary rights that might cover technology needed to implement this standard. 🦋 Send that info to the IETF at ietf-ipr@ietf.org, bestie. Literally the whole point is that people can speak up 💖

Acknowledgement

bestie, the RFC Editor function is funded by the Internet Society right now 🌈 So the people keeping the RFC series running have a real, current sponsor, and that's worth a little 🫶

📦 where this page comes from