Subject: IESG issues with draft-ietf-nomcom-rfc2727bis-07

From: Harald Tveit Alvestrand <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 07 Oct 2003 17:13:04 +0200

The IESG on October 2 evaluated the nomcom document.
It found a number of details that may need to be fixed, and three 
substantive issue that it seems to the IESG that it is necessary to fix.

The first 2 substantive issue was raised by Margaret Wasserman:

-------------------------------------------------------------
>In section 2:
>      The nominating committee will be given the title of the positions
>      to be reviewed and a brief description of the desirable set of
>      qualifications of the candidate that is nominated to fill each
>      position.

Is this information sent publicly or privately?  There are two issues
here:

1) I think that the "description of the desirable set of qualifications"
  should be posted publicly, along with the list of open positions when
  the call for nominations is sent.

2) The IESG and IAB should know, unambiguously, whether or not the
  information will be publicly disseminated before providing it.

------------------------------------------------------------------
>From section 3, subsection 8:
>      It is consistent with these rules for the announcements of a
>      resignation, of the existence of a mid-term vacancy, and of the
>      confirmed candidates 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 candidate already sitting on another body.
>
>      *  The newly confirmed candidate resigns from their current
>        position.
>
>      *  The body 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

This section indicates that a position may be vacated and filled
without the community being notified that a position is open.  IMO, no
position should be filled without public notice that the position is
open and a public call for nominations.

I understand one shool of thought that says that this is okay for IAB
positions during the normal selection cycle.  Because IAB members
don't have separate responsibilities, it _might_ be okay to pick 6 IAB
members from a candidate pool for 5 open positions, for example.
However, even in this case, the community might want to know if a
person with a particular specialty/area of expertise was moving, so
that folks with that type of expertise could be nominated.

This section would also be problematic for IESG positions.  This could
arise in any case where one IESG position is filled by a sitting IESG
member who is not up for renewal.  For example, consider a situation
where the IESG chair does not volunteer for another term and is
replaced by a sitting IESG member who is not up for renewal.  Even
though there are two ADs for most areas, the ADs often divide up the
area into logical sections, requiring different expertise for each
position.

There are also issues with filling any postition according to this
section if it is applied to interim vacancies.  For example, the
nomcom should not be empowered to move an IAB member to the IESG to
fill and interim vacancy and replace the IAB member without making a
public call for nominations for the open IAB position.
----------------------------------------------------------------
The third substantive issue was raised by Thomas Narten:

>        Liaisons from the IESG, IAB, and Internet Society Board of
>        Trustees are expected to review the operation and executing
>        process of the nominating committee and to report any concerns
>        or issues to the Chair of the nominating committee immediately.
>        If they can not resolve the issue between themselves liaisons
>        must report the issue to their respective bodies.  If their
>        respective body agrees that there is an issue the liaison must
>        report it according to the dispute resolution process stated
>        elsewhere in this document.

I worry that there will be problems with the above in practice. In
particular, the text requires that a liaison report problems back to
their respective group (i.e., IESG or IAB) before invoking the formal
dispute resolution mechanism. But confidentiality rules rather limit
what the liaison can say to their body, and in the case where dispute
resolution may need invoking, it seems like details will be
important. I worry that this will create problems in practice, with it
being unclear what can be said. And if that is the case, it is unclear
what value the discussion within the respective I* would actually
have. This is perhaps more a problem for the IESG, since it has no
confirming role, but it seems like a general issue.

There are ways of dealing with this, but I'm not sure what is best or
what the WG might think. Some initial thoughts:

- I note that the current wording doesn't mention the obvious, i.e.,
  have the liaisons and previous chair get together and discuss
  before escalating. One could also have the liaison (independently)
  decide whether to formally appeal after such a consultation. This
  avoids the confidentiality issue and would seem like a necessary
  check as part of escalating issues.

- add some wording saying that confidentiality rules allow sharing of
  info as needed to assess whether to file a formal complaint.
--------------------------------------------------------------------

I think these needs to be discussed in the WG, and that they need to either 
have new text crafted or a justification for the current choices given.

The more-or-less minor issues can be found in the ID tracker:

<https://datatracker.ietf.org/public/pidtracker.cgi?command=view_id&dTag=90
01&rfc_flag=0>

and are also given below in raw format.
These are, in the opinion of the IESG, "non-show-stopper" issues - not 
things that are critical enough to block/delay publication of the document 
on their own, but important enough to be worth mentioning, in case they can 
be quickly fixed while the document is "open". It is up to the WG what to 
do with these.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Steve Bellovin:
Comment:
The recall section makes no provision or even suggestion that the Recall 
Chair verify the putative signers.

Section 5, Point 12 suggests that the committee consult with the sitting 
members of the IAB and IESG.  I think that consultation with WG chairs 
should be suggested.

Ted Hardie:
Comment:
I note that the oral tradition section indicates that no person should 
serve on both the IESG and IAB, except the IETF Chair who serves on both by
definition.  I believe that there is some lack of clarity on whether the IAB
Chair's role ex officio in the IESG means she "serves on", and that this is
probably not the place to resolve that or go into the liaisons from one
body to the other.  To capture the same thing, how about:

"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 is set out elsewhere".

Thomas Narten:

 If a voting volunteer member is recalled the committee may
>        choose to proceed with only 9 voting volunteers at its own
>        discretion.  In all other cases 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.

The above implies to me that the nomcome is required to find a
replacement for a resignation, but is not for a recall. Shouldn't the
nomcom be allowed to also not replace resignations? I.e, I assume that
the nomcom would have  the option of filling or not filling any nomcom
opening, regardless of how it occurs.

>        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 greater than 2 years in order to ensure the
>        ideal application of this rule in the future.

s/greater than 2 years/of up to 3 years/

(right now, in theory, nomcom could pick the length of time, though I
suspect a lot of folk would be surprised if this ever happend...)

>        committee.  The addition must be approved by all members of the
>        committee according to its established voting mechanism.
>        Advisors participate as individuals.
>

"all members" wording implies everyone must agree. What is the intent
here? Is it "must be approved by a quorum of the committee according
to its established voting mechanism"? Note: similar wording appears
elsewhere.

>        conducted.  A member may recalled if at least a quorum of all
>        committee members agree, including the vote of the member being
>        recalled.

What does this mean? simple majority if there is a quorum? (I ask
because in most cases this document doesn't proscribe rules, leaving
that to the nomcom to decide.)

>    4.  Confirmed candidates are expected to serve at least a 2 year
>        term.

not consistent with interim appointments

>        First, when there is only one official nominating committee the

add comma after committee

>        As of the publication of this document the current mechanism is
      ^
>        an email message to both the "ietf" and the "ietf-announce"
>        mailing lists.

comma above

>        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.

s/specified/specified in this document/? (what is the intent?)

>    6.  A Chair, in consultation with the Internet Society President,
>        may appoint a temporary substitute.

Better to say "... for the Chair position".

>        If they can not resolve the issue between themselves liaisons

comma after themselves.

>        The confirmation process must be completed at least one month
>        prior to the First IETF.

s/must/should/ other parts of the document imply should on this topic.

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

ambigous wording. Reword:

        The term ends at the Third IETF (not three meetings), that is,
        the IETF after the next nominating committee's term begins.

Jon Peterson:
Comment:
The Introduction fastidiously notes that the organization of the IESG is 
outside the scope of the document. However, in so far as Section 3 bullet 3 
explains that half of the IESG positions are reviewed by the NomCom per 
year, would it make sense to mention at a high level that IESG members 
serve in specific Areas, and that the review process is staggered to 
preserve continuity and institutional memory within Areas? This seems like 
an important detail of the NomCom process to omit, even if it might change 
as the IETF changes. I'd note that Section 3 bullet 3 already has a caveat 
about future IESG reorganization, so I'm not sure how it would hurt to talk 
about the current IESG structure, in the interests of fully depicting the 
existing practice.

Margaret Wasserman:

Comment:
EDITORIAL:

>Abstract
>
>  The process by which the members of the IAB and IESG are selected,
>  confirmed, and recalled is specified.  This document is a
>  self-consistent, organized compilation of the process as it was known
>  at the time of publication.

Very weak...  I also don't think that the last sentence is true,
as this document changes some things.  Suggestions: Add a bit
more information (i.e mention the Nominations Commitee?) and remove
"as it was known at the time of publication".

The section numbering in this document doesn't match usual
conventions.  This makes it harder to refer to sections in this
document unambiguously.

>  3.  One-half of each of the then current IESG and IAB positions is
>      selected to be reviewed each year.

s/One-half of each of/One-half of/
s/positions is/positions are/

>      The intent of this rule to ensure the review of approximately
>      one-half of each of the IESG and IAB sitting members each year.

s/one-half of each of/one-half of/

>  4.  Confirmed candidates are expected to serve at least a 2 year
>      term.

This isn't always true.  Replacement candidates may serve
terms of less than two years.

>      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. The confirmed
>      candidate's term may overlap the sitting member's term during the
>      meeting as determined by their mutual agreement.

How does this apply to IAB terms?  In the case where there is
more than one new IAB member, I don't think that it is
defined which IAB member each new member is replacing.
>In section 4, subsection 7:
>        Liaisons from the IESG, IAB, and Internet Society Board of
>        Trustees are expected to review the operation and executing
>        process of the nominating committee and to report any concerns

There is a mention here of a liaison from the ISOC board.
But, there in section 4.3 there is a list of nomcom members
that indicates how they are selected, and the ISOC liaison
is not listed.

The organization of this document seems to result in repeating
a lot of information.  There are also a lot of forward
references.  This makes it difficult to find the part(s) of
the document that apply to a particular part of the process.

---

From: RJ Atkinson <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 07 Oct 2003 13:06:18 -0400

On Tuesday, Oct 7, 2003, at 11:13 America/Montreal, Harald Tveit 
> General Area is set out elsewhere".

That proposed fix seems problematic.  An alternative phrasing,
which I prefer (yet also suspect is consistent with Ted's intent)
might be:

	"No person should serve both as a sitting member of the IAB
	and as a member of the IESG."

Kindly recall that the IESG Chair (== IETF Chair) is not a
"sitting member of the IAB", neither now nor in the past,
but is instead an "ex-officio member of the IAB".

I'll defer commenting on the other IESG comments, for now.

One last item.  It would seem sensible to collect any extant IAB
inputs and any extant ISoC BoT inputs now, in the interest of
minimising the number of word-smithing iterations that this
document undergoes.  Legally at least, the ISoC BoT has to approve
this document before it goes into effect.  While that might usually
be pro forma approval, it certainly would be polite and sensible
to ask them for input on this draft right now.

Yours,

Ran
[email-masked]

---

From: Avri Doria <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 08 Oct 2003 11:53:55 +0900

I have taken the text of IESG comment and have broken it up into the  
specific issues and  numbered them.  I also added some discussion based  
on a review of some of the issues discussed by the WG on the list and  
in meetings and have added some questions that need to be answered in  
processing the issues.  The questions are not meant to be a complete  
list, and do not include some possible follow up questions.  I expect  
the detailed questions to evolve during the discussion.  Also they are  
not meant to be a poll at this point, but rather an indication of  
recommended focus for discussions.

In order to keep this discussion clear, I ask that  discussion of each  
issue be in a separate email and that the issue number be included in  
the subject line.

In order to complete the discussion in bounded time, I ask that the  
discussion period be limited to the next 2 weeks, ending 22 October.   
After that time, if a revision of the draft is required, it can,  
hopefully, still be submitted prior to the deadline for IETF58  
submissions (27 October).

I have not yet requested a meeting slot at IETF58, but will consider  
doing so if we cannot close all of the issues in the next 2 weeks.

Issue 1-3 are 'showstopper" Issues that must be resolved before the  
document will be allowed to proceed.

------------------
IESG Issue 1:
------------------

> The first 2 substantive issue was raised by Margaret Wasserman:

History: This issue was not discussed

Questions:

Should it be mandatory that the required qualifications list be made  
public?

  If not, should the required qualifications list be confidential?

-----------------
IESG Issue 2
-----------------
> raised by Margaret Wasserman:

> public call for nominations for the open IAB position.

Background:

The issue was first brought up
     http://lists.elistx.com/archives/ietf-nomcom/200303/msg00020.html

>>>
>>>> >>Insert in section 3 as paragraph 6 and renumber all subsequent  
>>>> paragraphs:
>>>>
>>>> "Nomcom-caused Mid-term Vacancies:
>>>>
>>>>  From time to time the Nomcom may propose moving a serving Area  
>>>> Director or
>>>> IAB member from one position to another. (E.g. moving a Transport  
>>>> AD to
>>>> cover O&M). If the serving member is at the end of their normal  
>>>> term there
>>>> is no change in procedures. Otherwise, this is treated as a mid-term
>>>> vacancy and mid-term procedures are used with the following  
>>>> exceptions:
>>>>
>>>> a) If the vacancy will occur on the IAB due to a move from the IAB  
>>>> to the
>>>> IESG, the Nomcom may, upon confirmation of nominee/IAB member,  
>>>> submit for
>>>> confirmation as part of the normal slate of candidates another  
>>>> nominee to
>>>> complete the term of the departing IAB member. If the Nomcom  
>>>> declines to
>>>> nominate a replacement as part of the annual process, the IAB may,  
>>>> at any
>>>> time after the confirmation of the departing member, ask the Nomcom  
>>>> to fill
>>>> the slot using mid-term procedures.
>>>>
>>>> b) If the vacancy will occur on the IESG, either as a move to  
>>>> another IESG
>>>> slot or as a move to the IAB, the Nomcom must use mid-term  
>>>> procedure rules.
>>>> Most importantly, they must advertise the vacancy, and must  
>>>> consider all
>>>> new candidates as equitably as any previously considered. The IESG  
>>>> chair is
>>>> responsible for notifying the IETF Executive director of the  
>>>> vacancy and
>>>> who in turn is responsible for asking the Nomcom select the  
>>>> replacement.
>>>> The Nomcom is explicitly barred from proceeding without an explicit  
>>>> request
>>>> from the IESG chair. The term of the nominee shall be for the  
>>>> remainder of
>>>> the term of the vacated position."

The recommended text change was never discussed on the list.

The issue surrounding the 'poaching' issue was discussed but the  
discussion centered on the serialization described in 2727bis-07.    
However, none of the discussions were about the result of moving  
someone from a non open seat on the IESG to fill an IAB slot and thus  
having to fill an unannounced IESG slot.

Questions:

Does the document need to be explicit about treating the replacement of  
an IESG member in an non open chair differently the the replacement of  
an IAB member in a non open seat?

Do full mid term replacement rules, including public announcement apply  
to this case?

------------------
IESG Issue 3;
------------------
>  info as needed to assess whether to file a formal complaint.

Background:

This particular issue was never discussed, but the issue of  
confidentiality was frequently discussed in many different contexts.   
Section 10, Security, discusses the extension of confidentiality to  
those outside the Nomcom when necessary, though it is not explicit that  
this extension would also apply to the IAB, IESG or ISOC in the case of  
Nomcom operational issues.

I also note that in the text Thomas quoted, it does state that after  
reporting the Issues to the chair or committee they only escalate if '  
they cannot resolve the issue between themselves'.  It is, perhaps,  
implicit in this that they can and should discuss with the past chair.

Questions:

Does content need to be added to the text to  allow extension of  
confidentiality to the Liaison in the case of reporting issues having  
to do with the internal operations of the Nomcom?

Does content need to be added to explicitly state that liaisons should  
consult among themselves and with the past chair before escalating an  
issue to their respective I-groups?

Issue 4-26 are not considered 'showstoppers' but should be addressed  
before sending the document back to the IESG

------------------
IESG Issue 4:
------------------

> Steve Bellovin:
> Comment:
> The recall section makes no provision or even suggestion that the  
> Recall Chair verify the putative signers.

Note: the Recall Chair would probably not be selected until there was a  
requirement for a recall committee and would probably be avaialble to  
verify the signatories.

Questions:

Should text be added to clarify that signatories must be confirmed to  
be qualified members of the IETF community according to Nomcom  
selection rules?

If so, should it be done by  the IETF Secretariat as is the case in  
verifying Nomcom volunteers.

------------------
IESG Issue 5:
------------------

>
> Section 5, Point 12 suggests that the committee consult with the  
> sitting members of the IAB and IESG.  I think that consultation with  
> WG chairs should be suggested.

Question: Should WG chairs be added to the list of those who should be  
consulted?

-----------------
IESG Issue 6
-----------------

> General Area is set out elsewhere".

Question: Should this text, or some other text, replace the current  
text in A2

-----------------
IESG Issue 7
-----------------

> opening, regardless of how it occurs.

Questions:

Is a change to the text required to make the two situation consistent?

-----------------
IESG Issue 8
-----------------

> suspect a lot of folk would be surprised if this ever happend...)

Questions:

Is the editorial change accepted?

Is text making it explicit that the maximum assignable term is 3 years  
needed?

-----------------
IESG Issue 9
-----------------

> to its established voting mechanism"? Note: similar wording appears

Background:  Section 4.3 indicates that non volunteers vote on all  
issues other then candidate selection.

Questions:

Should the participation of the non volunteers in voting issues be made  
explicit?

Should the non volunteers be excluded from voting on voting rules?

-----------------
IESG Issue 10
-----------------

> that to the nomcom to decide.)

Background:  While the document discusses the quorum that must be  
present for a vote, the actual voting mechanisms are to be be  
determined by the Nomcom itself.

Question: should text be added making an explicit rule for the voting  
in a Nomcom recall be specified in the document.

-----------------
IESG Issue 11
-----------------

> not consistent with interim appointments

Question: Should clarifying text indicate that  the Confirmed  
candidates, chosen by the standard process, as opposed to mid term  
appointments, be expected to seve at least 2 years.

-----------------
IESG Issue 12
-----------------

> add comma after committee

Question: Is the editorial change accepted?

-----------------
IESG Issue 13
-----------------

>>        an email message to both the "ietf" and the "ietf-announce"

Question: Is the editorial change accepted?

-----------------
IESG Issue 14
-----------------

> s/specified/specified in this document/? (what is the intent?)

Questions:

Is the editorial change accepted?

Is further explanation necessary indicating that the non volunteers  
participate in all votes except those dealing with candidate selection?

-----------------
IESG Issue 15
-----------------

> Better to say "... for the Chair position".

Question: Is the editorial change accepted?

-----------------
IESG Issue 16
-----------------

>>        If they can not resolve the issue between themselves liaisons

Question: Is the editorial change accepted?

-----------------
IESG Issue 17
-----------------

> s/must/should/ other parts of the document imply should on this topic.

Questions;

Is this an editorial or content change?

Is the change accepted?

-----------------
IESG Issue 18
-----------------

>        the IETF after the next nominating committee's term begins.

Question:   Is the more explicit rewording accepted?

-----------------
IESG Issue 19
-----------------

>
> Jon Peterson:
> Comment:
> The Introduction fastidiously notes that the organization of the IESG  
> is outside the scope of the document. However, in so far as Section 3  
> bullet 3 explains that half of the IESG positions are reviewed by the  
> NomCom per year, would it make sense to mention at a high level that  
> IESG members serve in specific Areas, and that the review process is  
> staggered to preserve continuity and institutional memory within  
> Areas? This seems like an important detail of the NomCom process to  
> omit, even if it might change as the IETF changes. I'd note that  
> Section 3 bullet 3 already has a caveat about future IESG  
> reorganization, so I'm not sure how it would hurt to talk about the  
> current IESG structure, in the interests of fully depicting the  
> existing practice.
>

Question: Should the discussion in Section 3 bullet 3, be expanded to  
include a discussion of why 1/2 at a time?

-----------------
IESG Issue 20
-----------------

> "as it was known at the time of publication".

Background:  this text was never discussed in the working group.

Question: Should the second sentence be removed or reworked?

-----------------
IESG Issue 21
-----------------

> conventions.  This makes it harder to refer to sections in this

Question: Should the document be renumbered using a more conventional  
numbering scheme?

-----------------
IESG Issue 22
-----------------

> s/one-half of each of/one-half of/

Discussion:  Seems largely editorial.  But the added precision does not  
make the English incorrect.  Nor does its removal.

question: Is the changed accepted.

-----------------
IESG Issue 23
-----------------

> terms of less than two years.

Same as issue 11

-----------------
IESG Issue 24
-----------------

> defined which IAB member each new member is replacing.

Questions:

Should the question of starting time for IAB be separated from the  
question of IESG?

Should it be pointed out that since IAB members do not replace specific  
IAB members, it is consistent that new IAB members may overlap with  
retiring IAB members?

-----------------
IESG Issue 25
-----------------

> that indicates how they are selected, and the ISOC liaison

Clarification: The first mention of the possible appointment of a  
Internet Society liaison is in 4.9

There seem to be two issues here,
- an editorial one dealing with a forward reference and the fact that  
there may not be a ISOC liaison
- an issue of whether the Nomcom procedures should specify how the ISOC  
Trustees choose a liaison if they decide to offer one.

Possible remedy to the editorial issue:

- move the content of 4.9 into 4.3 and edit the text in 4.7 to add the  
phrase 'if one has been appointed', right after Trustees.

Question: should this or some other change be made to the text?

  Discussion of the second issue:

Generally the rough consensus of the group was that the way the IAB or  
IESG made their decisions was not  to be defined by this document  
(though there was significant discussion around the IAB role as a  
confirming body).  Does this rough consensus also apply to the Internet  
Society Trustees should they decide to send a liaison?  We should note  
that part of the reason Internet society Liaisons were made  
discretionary is that the IETF was not viewed as having the mandate to  
dictate actions to the Internet Society Trustees in its BCPs.

Question:  Should text be added describing how the Internet Society  
Trustees pick their liaison, should they decide to send one?

-----------------
IESG Issue 26
-----------------

> the document that apply to a particular part of the process.

Question: Should the draft be restructured prior to resubmission?

---

From: Harald Tveit Alvestrand <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 08 Oct 2003 09:21:14 +0200

Thanks, Avri!

One point of clarification on this point:
While creating a vacancy by moving someone from the IESG to the IAB may not 
seem realistic, we have had events in the past where an IESG member has 
been moved into another slot on the IESG, and the same nomcom has filled 
the resulting vacancy, which was not included as a possible vacancy in the 
original call for nominations.

So it's a real practical question.

--On 8. oktober 2003 11:53 +0900 Avri Doria <[email-masked]> wrote:

> However, none of the discussions were about the result of moving  someone
> from a non open seat on the IESG to fill an IAB slot and thus  having to
> fill an unannounced IESG slot.
>
> Questions:
>

---

From: Harald Tveit Alvestrand <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 08 Oct 2003 10:11:29 +0200

Ran,

I believe the issue Ted brought up was triggered by the presence in both 
bodies of the IAB chair, and that he thought the description for the IETF 
chair was adequate.

Another possible fix, covering even more people:

"Some people serve on both the IESG and IAB as part of their role, such as 
the IETF Chair, the IAB Chair and the IAB-IESG liaisons. Apart from these, 
no person should serve both on the IAB and on the IESG."

BTW, RFC 2850 says that the IETF Chair is a "full member" of the IAB 
(section 1.1), but not a "sitting" member (section 1). Well-covered ground.

                        Harald

---

From: Robert Elz <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 08 Oct 2003 18:56:01 +0700

Date:        Wed, 08 Oct 2003 09:21:14 +0200
    From:        Harald Tveit Alvestrand <[email-masked]>
    Message-ID:  <181892227.1065604874@localhost>

  | So it's a real practical question.

Yes, but it is also a real hard question (as it was suggested in the IESG
objection anyway) - as the nomcom can't really announce that it is seeking
to fill that postion until after it knows that it will be vacant, which
can only be after the candidate has accepted the move, which can't really
happen (for certain) until after the confirmation by the confirming body.

Aside from not actually being certain that the position will be vacant until
after the resignation by the moved incumbent, to reveal that the nomcom
was seeking an extra AD for area X, or one more IAB member would (especially
in the first case) be revealing information that the nomcom is required
to keep confidential.

I believe that this issue is based upon a misunderstanding of what

>>>      *  The nominating committee acts on the request to fill the

really means.   There was no intent here (I believe) to allow ...

>> without the community being notified that a position is open.

Reading the procedure, it is fairly clear (to me anyway) that the
vacancy occurs only after confirmation (and announcement) of the new
positions, and is then handled just like any other mid term vacancy
(like one occurring in the middle of the normal term for whatever reason).

If the wording needs to be tweaked to make that even clearer, I doubt
anyone would object.

I don't think there's any rational way to have the newly vacant position
filled as a part of the initial nomcom process though (though the nomcom
may well be aware that a vacancy is likely, and perpare for it, so the
mid-term vacancy processing might end up being quite quick by comparison
with other events).  And this is regardless of whether the new position is
an IESG position or an IAB position.

> Do full mid term replacement rules, including public announcement apply

Yes, of course they do.   I find it hard to even imagine how the
text can be read so as to imply otherwise.   All this happens after
confirmation and announcement of the results of the nomcom process
that caused it - not during.

kre

---

From: RJ Atkinson <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 08 Oct 2003 11:08:01 -0400

On Wednesday, Oct 8, 2003, at 04:11 America/Montreal, Harald Tveit 
Alvestrand wrote:
> I believe the issue Ted brought up was triggered by the presence in 
> both bodies of the IAB chair, and that he thought the description for 
> the IETF chair was adequate.
>
> "Some people serve on both the IESG and IAB as part of their role, 
> such as the IETF Chair, the IAB Chair and the IAB-IESG liaisons. Apart 
> from these, no person should serve both on the IAB and on the IESG."

That is too confusing, IMHO. Also, I don't know what that version
is trying to fix relative to the much simpler text that I had proposed.
So I suspect that I am not following some subtlety of meaning that
is obvious to you (and others ?).

Maybe you could clarify your specific concerns with my
proposed text (quoted below) ?

> (section 1.1), but not a "sitting" member (section 1). Well-covered 

Right.   Which is why my proposed text specifically used the phrase
"sitting member" as the thing that an IESG person could not
concurrently be.  My reference to "ex officio" was NOT in the
proposed new text, but by way of explanation for this mailing list.

In at least US & UK English, "ex officio" means that someone
has some role/position as a derivative of holding a different office.
It does not necessarily mean that any "ex officio" person has
lesser status than other persons.

If the IETF has tried to alter the standard definition for "ex officio",
in RFC-2850 or elsewhere, that is very unfortunate because it means
that the IETF is not using standard English (per Websters or the OED;
my own dictionary at home is the OED).

Just to be crystal clear, my ENTIRE proposed replacement text is:

My text permits liaisons.   It also permits IETF Chair to be part
of the IAB, but does not permit the IETF Chair to be a sitting
member of the IAB.

Confusedly yours,

Ran

---

From: RJ Atkinson <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 08 Oct 2003 11:10:47 -0400

The quoted text below from KRE is entirely consistent with what
I thought this WG was saying (and trying to say) with the current
text.  I agree with KRE that the best approach would be to fix
the wording to be more clear, given that some IESG folks find the
current text confusing, rather than to try to change the intended
meaning.

Ran

---

From: Michael StJohns <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 08 Oct 2003 15:33:07 -0400

I'm going to go out on a limb here and suggest the IESG approve this 
document as is with the understanding that the NomcomWG will continue to 
work on the issues identified.

Here's why - the substantive issues are ALL present in the current (2727) 
process and approving this document creates no additional problems.  Indeed 
- this document fixes a number of problems that MUST be fixed sooner rather 
than later.

I'm going to go further out on a limb and suggest the IESG immediately 
refer the document to the RFC editor, and indicate to the Nomcom chair that 
this is the process to be followed for this cycle and that the ID will be 
considered authoritative for the process pending the publication of the RFC.

I realize this is out of the ordinary, but this process has been going on 
for a year and I don't think we can wait another year to fix the 2727 
brokeness.

Mike

At 11:13 10/7/2003, Harald Tveit Alvestrand wrote:
>I think these needs to be discussed in the WG, and that they need to 
>either have new text crafted or a justification for the current choices given.
>
>on their own, but important enough to be worth mentioning, in case they 
>can be quickly fixed while the document is "open". It is up to the WG what 
>to do with these.
>outside the scope of the document. However, in so far as Section 3 bullet 
>3 explains that half of the IESG positions are reviewed by the NomCom per 
>about future IESG reorganization, so I'm not sure how it would hurt to 
>talk about the current IESG structure, in the interests of fully depicting 
>the existing practice.
>
>Margaret Wasserman:
>
>Comment:
>EDITORIAL:
>
>>Abstract
>>
>To subscribe or unsubscribe from this elist use the subscription
>manager: <http://lists.elistx.com/subscribe>

---

From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 09 Oct 2003 04:11:05 -0700

Harald and all,

 Hummm? Sounds/reads an awful lot like a "Club" or "Clique" instead
of an organization...

> --On 8. oktober 2003 11:53 +0900 Avri Doria <[email-masked]> wrote:

Regards,

--
Jeffrey A. Williams
Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 134k members/stakeholders strong!)
"Be precise in the use of words and expect precision from others" -
    Pierre Abelard
===============================================================
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