Internet DRAFT - draft-dawkins-iesg-nomcom-advisor-iaoc

draft-dawkins-iesg-nomcom-advisor-iaoc







IESG                                                          S. Dawkins
Internet-Draft                                            Wonder Hamster
Updates: 7437 (if approved)                            September 2, 2017
Intended status: Best Current Practice
Expires: March 6, 2018


    IAB, IESG, and IAOC Selection, Confirmation, and Recall Process:
               IAOC Advisor for the Nominating Committee
             draft-dawkins-iesg-nomcom-advisor-iaoc-03.txt

Abstract

   This specification formalizes an ad hoc practice used to provide
   advice to the IETF Nominating Committee about the operations of the
   IETF Administrative Oversight Committee.

   This document updates RFC 7437.

Status of This Memo

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

   Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
   Task Force (IETF).  Note that other groups may also distribute
   working documents as Internet-Drafts.  The list of current Internet-
   Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.

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

   This Internet-Draft will expire on March 6, 2018.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2017 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
   document authors.  All rights reserved.

   This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
   Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
   (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
   publication of this document.  Please review these documents
   carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
   to this document.  Code Components extracted from this document must
   include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of



Dawkins                   Expires March 6, 2018                 [Page 1]

Internet-Draft           IAOC Advisor for Nomcom          September 2017


   the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
   described in the Simplified BSD License.

Table of Contents

   1.  Introduction  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   2
   2.  Discussion Venue  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   2
   3.  Background on 'IAOC Liaisons' to Nominating Committees  . . .   2
   4.  BCP Text Changes  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
     4.1.  Change to Section 4.3, 'Structure'  . . . . . . . . . . .   3
   5.  Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
   6.  IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
   7.  Acknowledgements  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
   8.  Normative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
   Appendix A.  Discussion Points  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
     A.1.  Why is this Role an Advisor?  . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
     A.2.  Why is this Role not a Liaison? . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
     A.3.  Why is this Role not required to be a Sitting IAOC
           Member? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
     A.4.  Why Does the Nominating Committee Request an IAOC
           Advisor?  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
   Author's Address  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8

1.  Introduction

   This specification formalizes an ad hoc practice used to provide
   advice to the IETF Nominating Committee about the operations of the
   IETF Administrative Oversight Committee (IAOC) (described in
   [RFC4071]).

   This document updates [RFC7437].

2.  Discussion Venue

   Please direct questions and comments to the IETF Discussion mailing
   list, at https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf.

   Please note that background on discussion points that have come up
   previously on the public IETF Nomcom discussion mailing list, at
   https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf-nomcom, during review is
   provided in Appendix A.

3.  Background on 'IAOC Liaisons' to Nominating Committees

   When RFC 7437 [RFC7437] was approved, it explicitly charged the
   Nominating Committee with selecting and reviewing certain members of
   the IAOC.  However, [RFC7437] did not provide for the IAOC to send a
   liaison to the Nominating Committee.



Dawkins                   Expires March 6, 2018                 [Page 2]

Internet-Draft           IAOC Advisor for Nomcom          September 2017


   This was not thought to be an obstacle, because [RFC7437] allowed any
   committee member to propose a liaison from the IAOC:

      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.

   Beginning in 2010, the IAOC provided a liaison to each Nominating
   Committee.  In 2016, the IAOC did not provide a liaison because the
   Nominating Committee was not appointing an IAOC member.  The previous
   Nominating Committee had filled a mid-term vacancy, using the process
   described in Section 3.5. of [RFC7437], appointing an IAOC member for
   a term longer than two years.  In 2017, the NomCom was selecting an
   IAOC member, but the opportunity to request a liaison from the IAOC
   was overlooked, because because this practice wasn't part of the
   documented process in [RFC7437].

   This specification adds the previously ad hoc role to [RFC7437], so
   future Nominating Committees will be less likely to overlook it.

   Although past ad hoc practice has characterized this role as a
   "liaison", this specification labels the role as an "advisor".  The
   rationale for this change in nomenclature is provided in
   Appendix A.1.

4.  BCP Text Changes

   This section provides the updated BCP text for [RFC7437].

   For each OLD text selection, NEW text is provided that replaces the
   OLD text in [RFC7437].

4.1.  Change to Section 4.3, 'Structure'

   OLD

      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.

   NEW





Dawkins                   Expires March 6, 2018                 [Page 3]

Internet-Draft           IAOC Advisor for Nomcom          September 2017


      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.

      Committee members are encouraged to propose the addition of an
      advisor who is knowledgeable about the operations of the IAOC,
      whether or not that Nominating Committee is reviewing an IAOC
      position.  The Nominating Committee may choose to ask the IAOC to
      suggest an advisor who is knowledgeable about IAOC operations, but
      may select any advisor they vote to approve.

5.  Security Considerations

   This document updates an IETF process BCP and has no direct Internet
   security implications.

6.  IANA Considerations

   This document makes no requests of IANA, and the RFC Editor can
   safely remove this section during publication.

7.  Acknowledgements

   Thanks to Adrian Farrel, Alissa Cooper, Andy Malis, Alvaro Retana,
   Joel Halpern, John Klensin, Leslie Daigle, Michael Richardson, Robert
   Sparks, Russ Housley, S.  Moonesamy, Scott Bradner, Stephen Farrell,
   and Ted Hardie for providing feedback on early versions of this
   document.

   Joel Halpern (2009/2010 past Chair/advisor) and Michael Richardson
   (2014-2015 Chair) are especially appreciated, because only a few
   people can provide a Nominating Committee Chair's perspective on how
   useful representation from the IAOC has been in practice.

8.  Normative References

   [RFC4071]  Austein, R., Ed. and B. Wijnen, Ed., "Structure of the
              IETF Administrative Support Activity (IASA)", BCP 101,
              RFC 4071, DOI 10.17487/RFC4071, April 2005,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4071>.

   [RFC7437]  Kucherawy, M., Ed., "IAB, IESG, and IAOC Selection,
              Confirmation, and Recall Process: Operation of the
              Nominating and Recall Committees", BCP 10, RFC 7437,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC7437, January 2015, <https://www.rfc-
              editor.org/info/rfc7437>.



Dawkins                   Expires March 6, 2018                 [Page 4]

Internet-Draft           IAOC Advisor for Nomcom          September 2017


Appendix A.  Discussion Points

   This section preserves discussions and explanations that came up
   during document discussions.  Ordinarily, this section might be
   deleted during the evaluation process, but some questions came up
   repeatedly and consistently, so the editor plans to leave them for
   anyone who also shares those questions.

A.1.  Why is this Role an Advisor?

   The editor of this document briefly considered proposing a new and
   IAOC-specific role to [RFC7437], but considered such a proposal to be
   complex.  Anticipating every corner case in IETF process BCPs is
   challenging and error-prone, and as this specification was being
   written, the IETF Chair was sponsoring a design team reviewing all
   aspects of the IETF Administrative Support Activity (IASA), so the
   structure and membership of the IAOC itself could change in the near
   future.  Instead, the specification describes how the Nominating
   Committee requests advisors, building on mature text that has
   survived many Nominating Committee cycles.

   After choosing to reuse existing roles defined in [RFC7437], the
   definition of Advisor in Section 4.9 seemed appropriate.

      An advisor is responsible for such duties as specified by the
      invitation that resulted in the appointment.

      Advisors do not vote on the selection of candidates.

   The position described in this specification could be filled by an
   advisor who would be a non-voting member of the Nominating Committee,
   who is knowledgeable about the operations of the IAOC, with duties
   that could evolve over time as the IAOC itself evolves.

   The only difference between this advisor that requires an update to
   [RFC7437] and and any other advisor is that committee members are
   explicitly encouraged to suggest that this advisor be appointed, as
   described in this specification.  The text updating [RFC7437] is
   found in Section 4.

A.2.  Why is this Role not a Liaison?

   Discussions on the IETF-Nomcom mailing list led to the recognition
   that "liaison" was not the best description of this role.

   The role of liaison defined in [RFC7437], Section 4.7 places some
   significant obligations on liaisons that aren't necessary for




Dawkins                   Expires March 6, 2018                 [Page 5]

Internet-Draft           IAOC Advisor for Nomcom          September 2017


   Nominating Committee to ask questions and get answers about the IAOC
   that come up in deliberations.  These obligations include

   o  Liaisons are responsible for ensuring the nominating committee in
      general and the Chair in particular execute their assigned duties
      in the best interests of the IETF community.

   o  Liaisons from the IESG, IAB, and Internet Society Board of
      Trustees (if one was appointed) 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 it according to the dispute
      resolution process stated elsewhere in this document.

   o  Liaisons may have other nominating committee responsibilities as
      required by their respective organizations or requested by the
      nominating committee, except that such responsibilities may not
      conflict with any other provisions of this document.

   Finally, in [RFC7437],Section 4.6, all of the liaisons are included
   in the pool of people who are eligible to be selected as a
   replacement for a Chair.

      There are a variety of ordinary circumstances that may arise from
      time to time that could result in a Chair being unavailable to
      oversee the activities of the committee.  The Chair, in
      consultation with the Internet Society President, may appoint a
      substitute from a pool comprised of the liaisons currently serving
      on the committee and the prior year's Chair or designee.

   Note:  During discussion of this specification, we noted that any
      liaison would be part of the pool of potential substitute
      Nominating Committee chairs.  It wasn't clear to the people in the
      discussion that making liaisons who are voted onto the Nominating
      committee eligible to be substitute Chairs is intentional.  That
      potential change is out of scope for this specification, but may
      be a conversation worth having separately.

   All of these obligations are important, but there are always at least
   two full liaisons from the confirming bodies already responsible for
   those responsibilities.  It is simply not necessary to make the job
   of helping Nominating Committee understand the IAOC more demanding
   than it must be.

   So, requiring the IAOC to name a formal liaison to the Nominating
   Committee isn't justified.




Dawkins                   Expires March 6, 2018                 [Page 6]

Internet-Draft           IAOC Advisor for Nomcom          September 2017


A.3.  Why is this Role not required to be a Sitting IAOC Member?

   In addition to the reasons given in Section Appendix A.2, the
   requirement that the IAB and IESG liaisons to the Nominating
   Committee be sitting members of the organizations they represent,
   whose positions are not being reviewed by this Nominating Committee,
   is especially challenging for the IAOC.

   Because so many IAOC positions are filled by members who are already
   members of IETF leadership who are subject to review by the
   Nominating Committee, limiting an IAOC liaison to one of the sitting
   members would mean that in some years, only the person who was
   appointed by the previous Nominating Committee and not being reviewed
   by this Nominating Committee, and the person who was appointed by the
   IAB or IESG and not being reviewed by the IAB/IESG, would be eligible
   sitting members of the IAOC who could serve as a liaison for the
   Nominating Committee.  "Eligible" does not also mean "willing and
   able to serve", so it is not impossible that in some years, an IAOC
   might find itself with no sitting member to send as advisor.

   Although all IAOC liaisons to the Nominating Committee have served as
   sitting members of the IAOC, given 10 years of IAOC operation, this
   specification assumes that other members of the community have
   sufficent experience to provide guidance if the IAOC chooses to
   suggest such a person.  If any given IAOC thought that was important,
   they could certainly continue to suggest sitting members, but if no
   sitting member was willing and able to serve, the IAOC would be free
   to do the next best thing, and would likely be the best qualiified
   group to decide who to send.

A.4.  Why Does the Nominating Committee Request an IAOC Advisor?

   This specification could have described the mechanism in one of two
   ways.

   o  The IAOC could simply provide the name of the advisor to the
      Nominating Committee, or

   o  The Nominating Committee could request the name of an advisor from
      the IAOC.

   Either choice could work.  The reason that this specification chose
   to have the Nominating Committee make the first move is that this is
   more similar to the way other advisors to the Nominating Committee
   are selected, except that the Nominating Committee is asking the IAOC
   for a suggestion before inviting the advisor to join the Nominating
   Committee.




Dawkins                   Expires March 6, 2018                 [Page 7]

Internet-Draft           IAOC Advisor for Nomcom          September 2017


   The suggestion is, in fact a suggestion, and the Nominating Committee
   still votes to invite this advisor, as they would vote to invite any
   advisor, as described in [RFC7437], Section 4.3.

Author's Address

   Spencer Dawkins
   Wonder Hamster Internetworking LLC

   Email: spencerdawkins.ietf@gmail.com









































Dawkins                   Expires March 6, 2018                 [Page 8]