Subject: [ietf-nomcom] a proposed revision to RFC3777 has been posted

From: James M Galvin <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 04 Mar 2009 12:03:18 -0600

At Russ' request I have posted a revision to RFC3777 with "one change". 
The change was have the document also include the IAOC.

As you know, RFC4071 already states RFC3777 is to be used.  In that 
context, we're hopeful this change is non-controversial and thus I 
provided a draft revised document.

However, in the process of making the edits I realized there were three 
things that might be considered "interesting" as opposed to "editorial" 
and so I wanted to call them to your attention.

I should state first that my model when I started the edits is that the 
IAOC should be "equal" to the IESG and IAB in this document.  This 
meant that it was my intention to simply add "IAOC" everywhere that 
"IAB and IESG" appeared.

Here are my comments.

1. RFC4071 states that RFC3777 is to be used to select and confirm two 
members of the IAOC.  This is different than how the IAB and IESG are 
treated since in those cases all members are subject to the selection 
and confirmation process.  In addition, RFC4071 states that all members 
of the IAOC are subject to the recall process in RFC3777.  So, please 
pay attention to this distinction as you review and make sure I covered 
all this correctly.

2. The IESG and the IAB are "required" to provide a liaison to the 
NOMCOM in RFC3777.  In contrast, the ISOC Board of Trustees has the 
option of doing so.  In keeping with the model of the IAOC being 
"equal" to the IESG and IAB, I stated that the IAOC is also required to 
provide a liaison.  This point needs to be brought to the attention of 
the IAOC since they may have an opinion.

3. I shortened the title dramatically to "Operation of the Nominating 
and Recall Committees."

As always, any comments or suggestions are always welcome.

Jim

---

From: "Spencer Dawkins" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 4 Mar 2009 14:04:31 -0600

Hi, Jim,

Nice work, for the 00 cutoff :-)

This revision looks pretty much like I would have expected an IAOC revision 
to look (please take that as praise). There were a few things I wondered 
about, as I was comparing against RFC 3777...

I may not understand the way things work, but in the Abstract,

<1>
   The IETF uses two committees to manage the selection, confirmation,
   and recall of some or all of the individuals who serve terms of
   membership on the bodies that support its operation.  As of the
   publication of this document the list of bodies includes the IESG,
   IAB, and the IAOC.  This document is a self-consistent, organized
   compilation of the process as it was known at the time of
   publication.

I'm not sure which two committees you're referring to. Perhaps naming them 
would be clearer?

In the following text,

        If a voting volunteer member is recalled, regardless of the
        circumstances, 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.

3777 talked about a voting volunteer position being VACATED, regardless of 
the circumstances. Was there a reason to force the NomCom Chair to fill 
positions vacated by resignations? I guess I'm wondering if we've ever 
executed this code - I don't remember seeing a NomCom Chair announce that a 
voting member was being added, regardless of the cause, and a quick scan of 
http://www.ietf.org/NomCom.html didn't show anyone as being replaced, 
although your memory is likely better than my archive scan...

In the following text,

<113>
   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 of a body with
       members to which this document applies.

"recall of any sitting of a body with members to which this document 
applies" doesn't parse for me. The 3777 text was "recall any sitting IAB or 
IESG member", so I'm assuming you meant something like "the recall of any 
sitting member of a body to which this document applies", but I'm just not 
sure.

You might want to (add a reminder to) remove the timeline section in a later 
revision of this draft - it's been obsoleted by RFC 5078.

Nits:

s/committe /committee /
s/are expect to/are expected to/
s/it is also helps/it also helps/

---

From: James M Galvin <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 04 Mar 2009 14:37:04 -0600

-- On March 4, 2009 2:04:31 PM -0600 Spencer Dawkins 
<[email-masked]> wrote regarding Re: [ietf-nomcom] a 
proposed revision to RFC3777 has been posted --

> I'm not sure which two committees you're referring to. Perhaps naming
> them would be clearer?

It should be the "Nominating Committee" and the "Recall Committee". 
How about we replace the "." at the end of the first sentence with:

    : Nominating Committee and Recall Committee

> 3777 talked about a voting volunteer position being VACATED,
> regardless of the circumstances. Was there a reason to force the
> NomCom Chair to fill positions vacated by resignations? I guess I'm
> wondering if we've ever executed this code - I don't remember seeing
> a NomCom Chair announce that a voting member was being added,
> regardless of the cause, and a quick scan of

Wow.  Good catch!  I'm going to have to go back and diff rfc3777 
against the XML source I've got.

Honestly, I have no immediate answer for this.  I did not change this 
text this time.  I started with the XML I had that was labeled as the 
XML I used to create RFC3777.  I did not confirm this because it was 
the only XML I had.

Apparently there were some edits way back when that did not make it in 
to the final document.  My bad, very bad, obviously.

I'm going to create and review a diff against RFC3777 and see what's up.

> applies" doesn't parse for me. The 3777 text was "recall any sitting
> IAB or IESG member", so I'm assuming you meant something like "the
> recall of any sitting member of a body to which this document
> applies", but I'm just not sure.

What I had left out was "member" next to "sitting member".  Your text 
is simpler and I will go with it.  I missed this spot when I was trying 
to clean up the 'extra' text I had added during my first edits.  The 
problem was I was over thinking the distinction between only 2 members 
get selected and confirmed in the IAOC and all members can be recalled.

> You might want to (add a reminder to) remove the timeline section in
> a later revision of this draft - it's been obsoleted by RFC 5078.

Another good catch.

Thanks!

Jim

---

From: "Spencer Dawkins" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 4 Mar 2009 14:44:52 -0600

Hi, Jim,

"works for me..." - and thanks for the quick turnaround. It's always nice 
when I can remember what I was thinking!

Spencer

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "James M Galvin" <[email-masked]>
To: "Spencer Dawkins" <[email-masked]>; <[email-masked]>
Sent: Wednesday, March 04, 2009 2:37 PM
Subject: Re: [ietf-nomcom] a proposed revision to RFC3777 has been posted

> <[email-masked]> wrote regarding Re: [ietf-nomcom] a proposed 
> revision to RFC3777 has been posted --
>
>> <1>
> It should be the "Nominating Committee" and the "Recall Committee". How 
> about we replace the "." at the end of the first sentence with:
>
> Wow.  Good catch!  I'm going to have to go back and diff rfc3777 against 
> the XML source I've got.
>
> Honestly, I have no immediate answer for this.  I did not change this text 
> this time.  I started with the XML I had that was labeled as the XML I 
> used to create RFC3777.  I did not confirm this because it was the only 
> XML I had.
>
> Apparently there were some edits way back when that did not make it in to 
> the final document.  My bad, very bad, obviously.
>
> What I had left out was "member" next to "sitting member".  Your text is 
> simpler and I will go with it.  I missed this spot when I was trying to 
> clean up the 'extra' text I had added during my first edits.  The problem 
> was I was over thinking the distinction between only 2 members get 
> selected and confirmed in the IAOC and all members can be recalled.
>
>
>

---

From: Russ Housley <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 04 Mar 2009 17:37:04 -0500

Jim:

In the past two years, the IAOC has not provided a liaison to 
NomCom.  Based on this precedent, I think the liaison from the IAOC 
should be optional.

Russ

At 01:03 PM 3/4/2009, James M Galvin wrote:
>"equal" to the IESG and IAB, I stated that the IAOC is also required 
>to provide a liaison.  This point needs to be brought to the 
>attention of the IAOC since they may have an opinion.

---

From: James M Galvin <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 04 Mar 2009 17:24:53 -0600

Sure, I could see that.  I wish I had left myself enough time to ask 
the IAOC in advance as to what they would prefer but I didn't do that. 
So, let me do it now.

Would the IAOC want to be required to have a liaison on the NOMCOM, 
similar to the IESG and IAB, or would it prefer to have it be optional, 
similar to the ISOC Board of Trustees?

Jim

-- On March 4, 2009 5:37:04 PM -0500 Russ Housley 
<[email-masked]> wrote regarding [ietf-nomcom] RFC 3777bis: 
Liaison from IAOC to NomCom --

> Jim:
>
> In the past two years, the IAOC has not provided a liaison to NomCom.
> Based on this precedent, I think the liaison from the IAOC should be
> optional.
>
> Russ
>
> > "equal" to the IESG and IAB, I stated that the IAOC is also
> > required  to provide a liaison.  This point needs to be brought to
> > the  attention of the IAOC since they may have an opinion.
>
> _______________________________________________
> ietf-nomcom mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf-nomcom

---

From: Bob Hinden <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 4 Mar 2009 18:39:53 -0800

Russ,

While don't have a strong opinion here, this might be a good topic for  
the IAOC to discuss.  Overall I think the nomcom has done a fine job  
selecting IAOC members, but I think it is worth some IAOC discussion.

Bob

On Mar 4, 2009, at 2:37 PM, ext Russ Housley wrote:

> IAOC mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/iaoc

---

From: Fred Baker <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 5 Mar 2009 08:18:19 -0800

On Mar 4, 2009, at 6:39 PM, Bob Hinden wrote:

> While don't have a strong opinion here, this might be a good topic  
> for the IAOC to discuss.  Overall I think the nomcom has done a fine  
> job selecting IAOC members, but I think it is worth some IAOC  
> discussion.

I guess my question is what the purpose of the liaison is.

In the IAB and IESG case, they have roles that much of the community  
(and therefore the nomcom in many cases) finds murky, and often have  
knowledge or insight from handling "special" issues that the community  
is not aware of. Since the nomcom is selecting their future  
membership, they want to be available for the nomcom to ask questions  
of. That is not the case with the ISOC Board, as the nomcom doesn't  
select membership there.

In all three cases, they are confirming bodies and often have  
questions for the nomcom, and their bodies will want to ask  
appropriate questions about the nomcom process such as "in your  
opinion did the nomcom come to its conclusions fairly and with  
appropriate reflection?".

So those are the primary roles of the liaisons: confidential  
communication between the nomcom and other bodies.

The IAOC is not a confirming body, but it does have insight that the  
rest of the community doesn't have as much visibility into relating to  
contracts and finances, and the nomcom does select a member for it.

One consideration: adding a person to the nomcom means one more  
person's time, and one more person in every meeting. One person  
doesn't break any banks, but there is an impact there.

That being the case, and given that the nomcom is capable of asking  
questions directly of the IAOC regarding its role, I think I would put  
it in the "optional" category. Willing to be argued out of that.

---

From: "Soininen, Jonne (NSN - FI/Espoo)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 06 Mar 2009 18:01:14 +0200

Hi,

I think this should be a little bit discussed, and I'm going to say my 
opinion now.

I think the level should be _at least_ "optional". Of course, it should 
be the IAOC to decide if they appoint a liaison or not.

I'm thinking what could be won of having a mandatory liaison, but I 
cannot think of anything.

Cheers,

Jonne.

---

From: Fred Baker <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 6 Mar 2009 08:12:54 -0800

On Mar 6, 2009, at 8:01 AM, Soininen, Jonne (NSN - FI/Espoo) wrote:

> I think the level should be _at least_ "optional". Of course, it  
> should be the IAOC to decide if they appoint a liaison or not.

Yes.

One thing to consider is whether, having appointed a liaison at all,  
the liaison needs to attend all meetings of the nomcom. If the IAOC  
was a confirming body, we would want the liaison there for all  
meetings so we could ask questions about the process followed - "do  
you believe that it was fair and equitable, or do you believe that  
there was a hatchet mob?" We're not a confirming body, so I think the  
purpose is more of the benefit of the nomcom. One could imagine them  
saying they wanted a liaison present for a stated set of meetings. The  
same rules would apply in terms of confidentiality etc, of course.

---

From: "Joel M. Halpern" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 06 Mar 2009 11:19:58 -0500

Note that one of the subtleties under here is that the usual 
interpretation of the RFC is that for committee votes other than on 
nominee / candidate issues, the liaisons get to vote.  More liaisons, at 
least in principle, means more non-volunteer voters on things like 
procedures for the committee.

Conversely, having a person there to ask "is X important to the IAOC?", 
or "does issue Y really come up?" seems quite valuable.

Yours,
Joel

Fred Baker wrote:
> One thing to consider is whether, having appointed a liaison at all, the 
> liaison needs to attend all meetings of the nomcom. If the IAOC was a 
> confirming body, we would want the liaison there for all meetings so we 
> could ask questions about the process followed - "do you believe that it 
> was fair and equitable, or do you believe that there was a hatchet mob?" 
> We're not a confirming body, so I think the purpose is more of the 
> benefit of the nomcom. One could imagine them saying they wanted a 
> liaison present for a stated set of meetings. The same rules would apply 
> in terms of confidentiality etc, of course.

---

From: "Soininen, Jonne (NSN - FI/Espoo)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 06 Mar 2009 19:24:17 +0200

Joel,

I don't quite understand. What do you mean the liaisons get to vote?

Cheers,

Jonne.
ext Joel M. Halpern wrote:
> nominee / candidate issues, the liaisons get to vote.  More liaisons, 
> at least in principle, means more non-volunteer voters on things like 
> Conversely, having a person there to ask "is X important to the 
> IAOC?", or "does issue Y really come up?" seems quite valuable.
>
> Yours,
> Joel
>
>
>
> Fred Baker wrote:
>>
>> saying they wanted a liaison present for a stated set of meetings. 
>> The same rules would apply in terms of confidentiality etc, of course.

---

From: "Joel M. Halpern" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 06 Mar 2009 12:32:36 -0500

Exactly what I said.
The nomcom chair defines the basic procedures that the nomcom shall use.
Typically there are a variety of things which are subject to the review 
of the committee.  Such as the dates and times for conference calls, 
etc.  (The exact scope of this varies from committee to committee,)  The 
usual reading of the rules is that liaisons do not vote on nominee 
selection.   But they do vote on all other matters.  (How much this 
matters in practice is hard to tell, and probably varies depending upon 
the committee chair and membership.)

Yours,
Joel

---

From: "Soininen, Jonne (NSN - FI/Espoo)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 06 Mar 2009 20:39:40 +0200

Joel.
> Exactly what I said.

I am sorry. I just wasn't able to parse exactly what you meant in your 
last mail. Thus, the further question. I think it is my limited English 
that required the rephrasing to be able to understand the topic.

> Typically there are a variety of things which are subject to the 
> review of the committee.  Such as the dates and times for conference 
> calls, etc.  (The exact scope of this varies from committee to 
> committee,)  The usual reading of the rules is that liaisons do not 
> vote on nominee selection.   But they do vote on all other matters.  
> (How much this matters in practice is hard to tell, and probably 
> varies depending upon the committee chair and membership.)

I have to admit I have yet to serve in a NomCom. I didn't know what 
else, except for the nominee selection, would the nomcom vote on. 
Perhaps, you could give an example of votes where the liaisons would 
vote on.

Cheers,

Jonne.

>>> nominee / candidate issues, the liaisons get to vote.  More 
>>> liaisons, at least in principle, means more non-volunteer voters on 
>>> things like procedures for the committee.
>>>
>>>> One thing to consider is whether, having appointed a liaison at 
>>>> all, the liaison needs to attend all meetings of the nomcom. If the 
>>>> IAOC was a confirming body, we would want the liaison there for all 
>>>> there was a hatchet mob?" We're not a confirming body, so I think 
>>>> the purpose is more of the benefit of the nomcom. One could imagine 
>>>> them saying they wanted a liaison present for a stated set of 
>>>> meetings. The same rules would apply in terms of confidentiality 
>>>> etc, of course.

---

From: Fred Baker <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 6 Mar 2009 10:44:01 -0800

On Mar 6, 2009, at 9:32 AM, Joel M. Halpern wrote:

> The usual reading of the rules is that liaisons do not vote on  
> nominee selection. But they do vote on all other matters.

I have chaired a nomcom and served as liaison to several. This is  
consistent with my experience.

---

From: "Joel M. Halpern" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 06 Mar 2009 13:48:17 -0500

Sorry Jonne.  I was not criticisng the quesiton (but reading your answer 
I see why it could be seen that way.)
I was trying to say "As unlikely as it sounds, the liaisons need to vote.)

As an example, since the liaisons are required to participate, they need 
a say in the selection of meeting times and conference call times.
There are chairs who have said that the liaisons have a vote in what 
voting procedure will be used for selecting candidates, even though they 
are not permitted to be a voter in the result.

Other things come up.
It should be remembered that what makes the nomcom "interesting", for 
the fictional-Chinese meaning of that word, are the unexpected things.

Yours,
Joel

---

From: Fred Baker <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 6 Mar 2009 10:56:25 -0800

On Mar 6, 2009, at 10:39 AM, Soininen, Jonne (NSN - FI/Espoo) wrote:
> I am sorry. I just wasn't able to parse exactly what you meant in  
> your last mail. Thus, the further question. I think it is my limited  
> English that required the rephrasing to be able to understand the  
> topic.
>
>> review of the committee.  Such as the dates and times for  
>> conference calls, etc.  (The exact scope of this varies from  
>> committee to committee,)  The usual reading of the rules is that  
>> liaisons do not vote on nominee selection.   But they do vote on  
>> all other matters.  (How much this matters in practice is hard to  
>> tell, and probably varies depending upon the committee chair and  
>> membership.)
>

The nomcom has to decide on a number of things besides the nominees,  
mostly related to process. How often, in what way, and at what time  
does it meet, specifically what questions should it ask people, should  
it have an extra meeting next Tuesday at 3:00 AM Canary Islands time,  
and so on. Since the liaisons have a role in the process and have to  
attend the meetings, their voices count on that topic. On the other  
hand, their input to discussions on nominees is limited (they may know  
a candidate and be able to point out issues that the nomcom should  
investigate, for example, but such comments get treated much as if  
they were comments posted by IETF participants to the nomcom input  
queue), and no vote on the candidates themselves.

---

From: Bernie Hoeneisen <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 7 Mar 2009 10:50:50 +0100 (CET)

Hi,

In past years there were many complaints about liasions taking too much 
influence on the NomCom decisions making process. Influencing the NomCom 
in its descision making process is certainly not the task of a liaison. 
Misusing the position as a liaison is more than disruptive.

However, liaisons have information that is most helpful to the NomCom in 
finding its decisions. Often only liaisons know what is really going on as 
they have the inside view ordinary members of the NomCom normally don't 
have.

Without breaking confidentiality rules, I can say that I particularly 
enjoied how this issue has been handled in the current NomCom. All 
liasions were a great help to the NomCom. Liaisons have not even tried to 
influence the NomCom decision making process by means not appropriate to 
their position. Liasions have used the feedback tool to provide the NomCom 
with personal contributions as everbody else. Joel and the liaisons have 
done a great job that served the NomCom (and the community) most. Thank 
you all!

I suggest to reflect the way this issue has been handled in the current 
NomCom to RFC3777bis to clear out the role of a liaison to any future 
NomCom. Actually, most of it is stated already in RFC3777, but due to the 
fact it was leading to unfortunate situations in the past, it might be 
worth looking at it.

cheers,
  Bernie

On Fri, 6 Mar 2009, Fred Baker wrote:

> The nomcom has to decide on a number of things besides the nominees, mostly 
> related to process. How often, in what way, and at what time does it meet, 
> specifically what questions should it ask people, should it have an extra 
> meeting next Tuesday at 3:00 AM Canary Islands time, and so on. Since the 
> liaisons have a role in the process and have to attend the meetings, their 
> voices count on that topic. On the other hand, their input to discussions on 
> nominees is limited (they may know a candidate and be able to point out 
> issues that the nomcom should investigate, for example, but such comments get 
> treated much as if they were comments posted by IETF participants to the 
> nomcom input queue), and no vote on the candidates themselves.

---

From: Bernie Hoeneisen <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 7 Mar 2009 11:17:21 +0100 (CET)

Hi,

IMHO an optional IAOC liaison makes sense. A mandatory IAOC liaison might 
cause difficulties to the IAOC as not so many IAOC members come into 
question for this post.

cheers,
  Bernie

On Fri, 6 Mar 2009, Soininen, Jonne (NSN - FI/Espoo) wrote:

> I think the level should be _at least_ "optional". Of course, it should be 
> the IAOC to decide if they appoint a liaison or not.
>
> I'm thinking what could be won of having a mandatory liaison, but I cannot 
> think of anything.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Jonne.
> ext Fred Baker wrote:
>> 
>>> While don't have a strong opinion here, this might be a good topic for the 
>>> IAOC to discuss.  Overall I think the nomcom has done a fine job selecting 
>>> IAOC members, but I think it is worth some IAOC discussion.
>> 
>> In the IAB and IESG case, they have roles that much of the community (and 
>> therefore the nomcom in many cases) finds murky, and often have knowledge 
>> or insight from handling "special" issues that the community is not aware 
>> of. Since the nomcom is selecting their future membership, they want to be 
>> available for the nomcom to ask questions of. That is not the case with the 
>> ISOC Board, as the nomcom doesn't select membership there.
>> 
>> In all three cases, they are confirming bodies and often have questions for 
>> the nomcom, and their bodies will want to ask appropriate questions about 
>> the nomcom process such as "in your opinion did the nomcom come to its 
>> conclusions fairly and with appropriate reflection?".
>> 
>> So those are the primary roles of the liaisons: confidential communication 
>> between the nomcom and other bodies.
>> 
>> The IAOC is not a confirming body, but it does have insight that the rest 
>> of the community doesn't have as much visibility into relating to contracts 
>> and finances, and the nomcom does select a member for it.
>> 
>> One consideration: adding a person to the nomcom means one more person's 
>> time, and one more person in every meeting. One person doesn't break any 
>> banks, but there is an impact there.
>> 
>> questions directly of the IAOC regarding its role, I think I would put it 
>> in the "optional" category. Willing to be argued out of that.

---

From: "Jeffrey A. Williams" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 06 Mar 2009 13:24:10 -0800

Bernie and all,

  I fully agree with your sentiments here.  However this sort
of thing has been going on for years relatively unabated.  I
believe it is in part due to personal preferences taking precedence
by some or a few vs using unbiased judgment.  But of course I
cannot prove that as a fact.  Yet evidently over very recent years,
governments and government entities have seen or accepted my
and others belief and via regulation/policy making begun taking
a much larger and broader role in "Managing" the Internet at
nearly every level.  I view this as a bad and largely unwanted,
or soon to be unwanted thing.  Yet we largely only have ourselves
to blame.  >:(

> > nomcom input queue), and no vote on the candidates themselves.

Regards,

Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 284k members/stakeholders strong!)
"Obedience of the law is the greatest freedom" -
   Abraham Lincoln
"YES WE CAN!"  Barack ( Berry ) Obama

"Credit should go with the performance of duty and not with what is
very often the accident of glory" - Theodore Roosevelt

"If the probability be called P; the injury, L; and the burden, B;
liability depends upon whether B is less than L multiplied by
P: i.e., whether B is less than PL."
United States v. Carroll Towing  (159 F.2d 169 [2d Cir. 1947]
===============================================================
Updated 1/26/04
CSO/DIR. Internet Network Eng. SR. Eng. Network data security IDNS.
div. of Information Network Eng.  INEG. INC.
ABA member in good standing member ID 01257402 E-Mail
[email-masked]
My Phone: 214-244-4827

---

From: Danny McPherson <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 11 Mar 2009 21:52:52 -0600

On Mar 7, 2009, at 2:50 AM, Bernie Hoeneisen wrote:

> Hi,
>
> In past years there were many complaints about liasions taking too  
> much influence on the NomCom decisions making process. Influencing  
> the NomCom in its descision making process is certainly not the task  
> of a liaison. Misusing the position as a liaison is more than  
> disruptive.
>
> However, liaisons have information that is most helpful to the  
> NomCom in finding its decisions. Often only liaisons know what is  
> really going on as they have the inside view ordinary members of the  
> NomCom normally don't have.
>
> Without breaking confidentiality rules, I can say that I  
> particularly enjoied how this issue has been handled in the current  
> NomCom. All liasions were a great help to the NomCom. Liaisons have  
> not even tried to influence the NomCom decision making process by  
> means not appropriate to their position. Liasions have used the  
> feedback tool to provide the NomCom with personal contributions as  
> everbody else. Joel and the liaisons have done a great job that  
> served the NomCom (and the community) most. Thank you all!

I would observe, however, that because liaisons are privy to
internal NomCom discussions, they may be placed in compromising
positions where they need to provide additional input to specific
deliberations, either via the feedback tool or directly, should
they have first-hand knowledge of some factual event that is
being mis-represented, or mis-interpreted, or other.

I'd prefer that text in this area not be overly prescriptive for
this reason.

-danny

---

From: Danny McPherson <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 11 Mar 2009 23:30:02 -0600

> consistent with my experience.

As is my experience on the four NomCom's with which I've
served different roles.

-danny

---

From: Danny McPherson <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 11 Mar 2009 21:48:31 -0600

On Mar 7, 2009, at 3:17 AM, Bernie Hoeneisen wrote:

> Hi,
>
> IMHO an optional IAOC liaison makes sense. A mandatory IAOC liaison  
> might cause difficulties to the IAOC as not so many IAOC members  
> come into question for this post.

Agreed..

-danny

---

From: Danny McPherson <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 11 Mar 2009 22:04:37 -0600

Two other topics for consideration, which Spencer and
I outlined in the 3777 issues draft regarding liaisons
are:

- Textual consideration might be given that stems term
limits for liaisons.  E.g., the ISOC should not appoint
the same liaison to the NomCom during successive terms.
This can't occur for the IAB or IESG, given the biyearly
selection frequency, but the issue was raised during one
of my NomComs with regard to the ISOC IETF NomCom liaison.

- Additionally, affiliation of liaisons might well be
given consideration.  That is, while voting members are
already limited to two members with the same affiliation,
there is no consideration given to liaisons, so you
could theoretically wind up with as many as 7 members
(chair, advisor, 2 voting, 3 liaison) from the same
organization and not violate the current rules.

In practice, I've not ever seen anything to suggest that
either of these issues have ever introduced nomcom
product integrity issues, but perception is worthy of
consideration, and these issues have been brought up
several times.

-danny

---

From: "Soininen, Jonne (NSN - FI/Espoo)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 12 Mar 2009 16:24:00 +0200

Hi Jim,

We did an official poll on the IAOC, and the IAOC's formal position is that
the IAOC would like to have an option liaison position in the Nomcom.

I guess, it is for the IETF process to see if the wish is granted...

Cheers,

Jonne.

-- 
Jonne Soininen
Nokia Siemens Networks

Tel: +358 40 527 46 34
E-mail: [email-masked]

---

From: "LANGE Andrew" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 12 Mar 2009 15:13:22 -0500

I agree with Danny on this, we don't want to over-prescribe liaison behavior.  Although there is potential for abuse with liaisons they provide can important insights.  Most liaisons are quite respectful of the voting members of NomCom.

Andrew

-----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] on behalf of Danny McPherson
Sent: Wed 3/11/2009 8:52 PM
To: NomComDiscussion
Subject: Re: [ietf-nomcom] Role of Liaisons (was Re: RFC 3777bis: Liaisonfrom IAOC to NomCom)

-danny

---

From: Russ Housley <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 13 Mar 2009 09:58:01 -0400

In my view, some guidance on these topics should be included in 
3777bis, even if it is not rules.

Russ

---

From: "Spencer Dawkins" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 13 Mar 2009 09:07:17 -0500

This is pointing to Jim's earlier question about whether we fold other 
drafts into 3777bis, or approve them separately.

Russ, were you proposing that we would be putting all the revisions into 
3777bis?

I am concerned about the level of fate-sharing that would lead to (the draft 
would progress at the rate of the least-accepted proposal in the draft), and 
I'm concerned about our ability to cap off new proposals and publish a 
3777bis in the near future, if we keep adding proposals to a single draft.

Thanks,

Spencer

> In my view, some guidance on these topics should be included in 3777bis, 
> even if it is not rules.
>
> Russ
>

---

From: James M Galvin <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 13 Mar 2009 10:27:14 -0400

-- On March 13, 2009 9:07:17 AM -0500 Spencer Dawkins 
<[email-masked]> wrote regarding Re: [ietf-nomcom] Liaison 
'term limit and affiliation consideration' --

> I am concerned about the level of fate-sharing that would lead to
> (the draft would progress at the rate of the least-accepted proposal
> in the draft), and I'm concerned about our ability to cap off new
> proposals and publish a 3777bis in the near future, if we keep adding
> proposals to a single draft.

I agree that this can be an issue (as it is for any document in the 
IETF) but if there is the option to progress separate documents as an 
update to 3777bis I think we can manage this.

I would propose that we include as much as we can in 3777bis up to the 
point that we want to publish it and then to continue to progress other 
issues in the timeframe they need to ensure adequate discussion and 
consensus.

Who knows, maybe things will play out in a way that a 3777bisbis will 
make sense rather than a number of separate update documents.

But then again, I'm almost afraid to ask this question but, is this a 
working group or just a discussion group for individual submissions? 
Actually, I know the answer to that question.  The real question is 
what that means to the process we will (or can?) follow?

Jim