Subject: Recommendations for closing open issues.

From: Avri Doria <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 08 May 2003 14:30:21 +0900

On 1 April, a list of topics and recommendation from the
design team was sent to this list for review and discussion.

If I have counted correctly there have been 38 comments by 10
people with 2 people accounting for 60% of the traffic.  I
have tried to capture the rough consensus points in this list.
there has also been and extensive and sometime lively discussion
in the design team on these issues.

On several issues, there was a fairly even split on the
opinions.  In those cases, where there was a preexisting
practice, a lack of consensus to change the practice
was taken as an indication that the practice should remain
as document in RFC2727.

The following reflects actions to be taken in the document.

A new draft should be out shortly for WG review.

-------
Issue 1
-------

Re: Discretion of the IAB or IESG over whether a midterm
vacancies must be filled.

2727bis allegedly removed discretion for whether a mid-term
vacancy should be filled by the NomCom.  This would have been
a process change from previous practice.  There was no consensus
for such a change.

The discretion should remain with the body that looses a member.
This means that the language for mid term vacancies should be
clarified to indicate this.

Essentially, from the NomCom point of view, a vacancy exists only
when the ExDir informs it of a vacancy.  The resignation per se
does not constitute such notification.

-------
Issue 2
-------
Re: Poaching rules

It has been the practice of NomCom to not only choose candidates
from mid-term sitting members of the other sitting body, but to
nominate replacements for that person at the same time.

The policy will be clarified based on the the fact
that a vacancy does not exist until a resignation occurs and
the ExDir notifies the NomCom that the vacancy does exist.

There is, however, interest in keeping the process efficient.
Therefore the following 2 stage process will be documented:

1. Once the candidate is confirmed he/she is advised to immediately
resign from the prior post.  This resignation does not need to
be made public immediately, nor does it need to take effect
until a later time.  The NomCom is notified of the pending
resignation by the ExDir.
2. The NomCom then nominates a candidate for the 'to be vacant'
post.  Since the NomCom can predict this vacancy, it can be
ready with a candidate.

-------
Issue 3
-------

Re: Question of whether someone can be a member of both the IAB and
the IESG

This was discussed earlier in this WG process and the consensus
was that while this is inadvisable, it should not be prohibited
by rule. Advise was therefore inserted in the advice section stating
that it was inadvisable and that is had never been done.

While there have been some strong opinions voiced in the recent
discussion that this should be prohibited by an explicit rule,
there still does not seem to be a consensus for elevating it to
a rule. It therefore remains as advice.

-------
Issue 4
-------

Re. Question of whether the confirming body, CB,  is limited
to reviewing only for process irregularities or can do a full
review of candidates.

The WG consensus appears to be in favor of a CB requirement
for due diligence in its review of candidates.
The document should reflect this.

-------
Issue 5
-------

Re: the question of reviewing a slate as whole or as individual
candidates.

In the past it was accepted that once the CB approved a candidate
that candidate could not then be withdrawn by the Nomcom.
The language of RFC2727  does not include the notion of a slate
being submitted, but rather a list of individuals who are each judged
and confirmed on their own separate merits.

The latest version of 2727bis added the notion of a slate which
has a coherence beyond simply being a list of individuals. New
text made explicit the possibility of Nomcom revisiting the slate
once submitted, including candidates who had already been confirmed,
until such time as the entire slate had been approved.

This change did not appear to receive WG consensus.  The lack of
consensus warrants returning the process to the language of
RFC2727 that deals with lists of individual candidates and which
does not give the Nomcom the ability to withdraw candidates once
they are approved by the CB.

-------
Issue 6
-------

Re. The rules under which the CB decides to accept or not
accept a candidate should be strengthened from the RFC2727
rule:
       that at least one-half of the sitting
       members agree with the decision.

There was also a counter proposal that the rule should changed
to leave the full discretion up to CB, i.e. the rule for one-half
of sitting members be removed.

While there were some strong opinions that a stronger dictate
on the CB decision procedure was warranted, and some strong opinions
that the CB should pick using a process of its own choosing without
any predefined rules, there was no consensus for changing the language
of RFC 2727.

-------
Issue 7
-------

Re: Is the IETF chair a sitting member of the IAB?

The role of the IETF chair with regard to the IAB is
defined in the IAB charter.  2727bis should refer to this
language.

There was no consensus for making any change to the IETF chair's
role in 2727bis.

--------
Issue 8
--------

Re: Issue of succession rules for IETF Chair

The WG was asked to include rules describing the process
of succession for the IETF chair.

There did not appear to be a consensus for adding such
language to the text of the nomcom document.  Rather, there was 
recommendation to IESG chair that the IESG charter should fix
this.

Otherwise this falls under normal midterm vacancy rules.  As
with any other vacancy upon request of the IESG the ExDir
informs the Nomcom of the vacancy and the IESG deals with the
vacancy in its own fashion.

There was no consensus for making a change to cover this in
2727bis.

--------------------------------------------------------------

I await the WG's comments.

a.

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 08 May 2003 11:21:44 +0200

...
> post.  Since the NomCom can predict this vacancy, it can be

I really feel this is overkill. There have been several instances
in which the Nomcom wanted to move someone from the IAB to the IESG
in midterm, and since in practice the IESG slate is approved first,
this has worked smoothly without any need for a formal resignation and
notification. The proposed change just introduces pointless procedure.

Rule 1 in Section 5 allows the NomCom to exercise common sense, so I 
think that there is no need to write anything down.

Regards
   Brian

---

From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 08 May 2003 13:26:57 -0700

Brian and all,

  Respectfully Brian, I disagree with you here.  It is very important that

a simple but documented procedure be in place to accomplish this.
Hence "Something" needs to be written down as often times common
sense is not practiced...

Brian E Carpenter wrote:

> ----------------------------------------------------------------
> To subscribe or unsubscribe from this elist use the subscription
> manager: <http://lists.elistx.com/subscribe>

Regards,

--
Jeffrey A. Williams
Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 129k members/stakeholders strong!)
================================================================
CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng. SR. Eng. Network data security
Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
E-Mail [email-masked]
Contact Number: 214-244-4827 or 214-244-3801

---

From: James M Galvin <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 08 May 2003 15:55:47 -0400 (Eastern Daylight Time)

> the ExDir notifies the NomCom that the vacancy does exist.

    I really feel this is overkill.

It is, in part, but experience has told us that it is important to
document this edge condition.  It reinforces:

1. the rule that the NOMCOM is told what positions to fill.

2. The non-rule that serving on more than one body is not prohibited.

Revising this document is mostly about clarifications, which arguably
could be mostly overkill.

Jim

---

From: James M Galvin <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 08 May 2003 16:13:39 -0400 (Eastern Daylight Time)

Speaking personally (not as Editor of the document) I have a different
view of the consensus on this point.

As pointed out, there were some significant advocates in favor of
specific rules for the voting rules of the confirming bodies.  I agree
there was no consensus on creating such specific rules.

From that discussion came the counter-proposal for the NOMCOM document
to not say anthing about the voting rules of the confirming body.  It is
my opinion there was consensus on this point because some of those who
favored specific rules preferred no rules if they could not get the
specific rules first suggested.  The reason for this was they agreed
that the voting rules for a confirming body are more properly stated in
the respective "charters" for those bodies.  Thus, the rule in 2727bis
should change to say that a confirming body makes a decision about
confirmation according to its ordinary process for making decisions.

If I'm wrong and you agree with the consensus as stated below, then
there is nothing for you to do.

If you believe I'm right and do not agree with the consensus stated
below then you should send a note to the mailing list stating as such.

Jim

On Thu, 8 May 2003, Avri Doria wrote:

    -------
    Issue 6
    -------

---

From: Michael StJohns <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 08 May 2003 16:31:18 -0400

Hi Avri - comments in line.  Restricted to the mechanical deterministic 
issues rather than whether one approach or the other is better.

>post.  Since the NomCom can predict this vacancy, it can be

Resolution Issue 1 conflicts with this resolution of issue 2.  This 
language implies the poached candidate is required to resign (which 
conflicts with the statements in issue 1).  If Issue 1 stands as stated, 
then the poached canidate CANNOT be advised to resign, the nomcom CANNOT 
predict the vacancy and SHOULD NOT take any action to fill it.  Either 
change 1 so that the poached candidate is REQUIRED to resign, or change 2 
so that it acknowledges the nomcom cannot a priori propose a candidate to 
fill a poached position for a mid-term poaching.

>a rule. It therefore remains as advice.

And 3 conflicts with 2.  Let's just make 2 go away and instead make sure 
the Nomcom knows it has to wait to be asked, it can't assume the position 
will become vacant.

>       members agree with the decision.

Mechanically, this rule has two non-terminating states.  The state where 
1/2 agree to confirm and 1/2 agree not to confirm; and the state where less 
than 1/2 agree on anything (e.g. 1/3 agree to confirm, 1/3 agree not to 
confirm and 1/3 decide to abstain.  At a minimum this language should be 
change from "agree with the decision" to "agree to confirm".  Ideally 
"sitting members" should be changed to "qualified members" to cover the 
situation where one or more sitting members must disqualify themselves due 
to conflicts (e.g. Ted Hardie IAB member being considered for an IESG 
position - Ted doesn't get a vote).

---

From: James M Galvin <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 08 May 2003 17:01:04 -0400 (Eastern Daylight Time)

Speaking as Editor:

With respect to your comments on Issues 1, 2, and 3, specifically how
they conflict, please do review the actual text when it becomes
available.  The conflicts should not be present.

Jim

    >vacancies must be filled.

    Resolution Issue 1 conflicts with this resolution of issue 2.

    >Re: Question of whether someone can be a member of both the IAB and

    And 3 conflicts with 2.

---

From: Geoff Huston <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 09 May 2003 08:01:50 +1000

I like to raise a point of clarification regarding the reference to the
role of the "ExDir" in this summary.....

>>does not constitute such notification.

As a point of clarification, there are in fact 2 Executive Directors - one
for the IESG and 1 for the IAB. It appears to me that it is appropriate
that the advice to the Nomcom regarding IAB vacancies originates
from the IAB Executive Director.l

>>the ExDir notifies the NomCom that the vacancy does exist.

In the same vein, this refers to the Exec Dir of the body
to whom the resignation is passed.

>>resignation by the ExDir.

as above.

---

From: Harald Tveit Alvestrand <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 09 May 2003 08:05:50 +0200

> from the IAB Executive Director.l

IESG doesn't have an ExDir; the IETF has one.

RFC 2727 says:

   a. The IETF Executive Director advises the nominating committee of
      the IESG and IAB positions to be reviewed.

so this would be a change....

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 09 May 2003 09:51:47 +0200

The reason I don't object to Avri's proposal is that a simple majority
is never going to be in conflict with any reasonable voting rule in
the confirming bodies, and it doesn't prevent them having a more
stringent rule. I wouldn't object to Jim's proposal either, but it
just isn't a big deal imho.

   Brian 

-- 
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Brian E Carpenter 
Distinguished Engineer, Internet Standards & Technology, IBM 
On assignment at the IBM Zurich Laboratory, Switzerland

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 09 May 2003 10:16:54 +0200

Jim,

James M Galvin wrote:
> document this edge condition. 

What experience? When was there ever a problem in this area? I've served
in both the confirming bodies and I have never seen a case where there
was any confusion or doubt about this.

> It reinforces:

If it adds redundant bureaucratic process, it is a *harmful* clarificattion.

I've said my piece on this, so I will try to shut up .

   Brian

---

From: Geoff Huston <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 09 May 2003 23:17:42 +1000

At 08:05 AM 5/9/2003 +0200, Harald Tveit Alvestrand wrote:

>--On fredag, mai 09, 2003 08:01:50 +1000 Geoff Huston <[email-masked]> wrote:
>

Thank you for the clarification.

Nevertheless, the IAB still has an Executive Director and its _not_
the same individual as the IETF Executive Director, which was
the point of my posting.