Movatterモバイル変換

Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF)                        S. DawkinsRequest for Comments: 8318                                Wonder HamsterBCP: 10                                                     January 2018Updates:7437Category: Best Current PracticeISSN: 2070-1721IAB, IESG, and IAOC Selection, Confirmation, and Recall Process:IAOC Advisor for the Nominating CommitteeAbstract   This specification formalizes an ad hoc practice used to provide   advice to the IETF Nominating Committee (NomCom) about the operations   of the IETF Administrative Oversight Committee (IAOC).   This document updatesRFC 7437.Status of This Memo   This memo documents an Internet Best Current Practice.   This document is a product of the Internet Engineering Task Force   (IETF).  It represents the consensus of the IETF community.  It has   received public review and has been approved for publication by the   Internet Engineering Steering Group (IESG).  Further information on   BCPs is available inSection 2 of RFC 7841.   Information about the current status of this document, any errata,   and how to provide feedback on it may be obtained athttps://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8318.Copyright Notice   Copyright (c) 2018 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the   document authors.  All rights reserved.   This document is subject toBCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal   Provisions Relating to IETF Documents   (https://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   the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as   described in the Simplified BSD License.Dawkins                   Best Current Practice                 [Page 1]

RFC 8318                 IAOC Advisor for NomCom            January 2018Table of Contents1.  Introduction  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .32.  Background on 'IAOC Liaisons' to Nominating Committees  . . .33.  BCP Text Changes  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .43.1.  Change toSection 4.3 of RFC 7437, 'Structure'  . . . . .44.  Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .45.  IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .46.  Normative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .5Appendix A.  Discussion Points  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .6A.1.  Why Is This Role an Advisor?  . . . . . . . . . . . . . .6A.2.  Why Is This Role Not a Liaison? . . . . . . . . . . . . .7     A.3.  Why Is This Role Not Required to Be a Sitting IAOC           Member? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .8     A.4.  Why Does the Nominating Committee Request an IAOC           Advisor?  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .8   Acknowledgements  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .9   Author's Address  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .9Dawkins                   Best Current Practice                 [Page 2]

RFC 8318                 IAOC Advisor for NomCom            January 20181.  Introduction   This specification formalizes an ad hoc practice used to provide   advice to the IETF Nominating Committee (NomCom) about the operations   of the IAOC (described in [RFC4071]).   This document updates [RFC7437].   Proposed future changes toBCP 10 should be discussed on the public   IETF NomCom discussion mailing list, at   <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf-nomcom>.2.  Background on 'IAOC Liaisons' to Nominating Committees   WhenRFC 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.   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 inSection 3.5. of [RFC7437]) by 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 this practice wasn't part of the   documented process in [RFC7437].   This specification adds the previously ad hoc role to [RFC7437] so   that 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 inAppendix A.1.Dawkins                   Best Current Practice                 [Page 3]

RFC 8318                 IAOC Advisor for NomCom            January 20183.  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].3.1.  Change toSection 4.3 of RFC 7437, '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      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.4.  Security Considerations   This document updates an IETF process BCP and has no direct Internet   security implications.5.  IANA Considerations   This document has no IANA actions.Dawkins                   Best Current Practice                 [Page 4]

RFC 8318                 IAOC Advisor for NomCom            January 20186.  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                   Best Current Practice                 [Page 5]

RFC 8318                 IAOC Advisor for NomCom            January 2018Appendix 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, so the editor has included 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 prone to error, 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).   Therefore, the structure and membership of the IAOC itself could   change in the near future.  Instead, the specification describes how   the nominating committee requests advisors and builds on mature text   that has survived many nominating committee cycles.   After choosing to reuse existing roles defined in [RFC7437], the   definition of "advisor" inSection 4.9 of [RFC7437] 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, and who has   duties that could evolve over time as the IAOC itself evolves.   The only difference between this advisor that requires an update to   [RFC7437], 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 inSection 3.Dawkins                   Best Current Practice                 [Page 6]

RFC 8318                 IAOC Advisor for NomCom            January 2018A.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 inSection 4.7 of [RFC7437] places some   significant obligations on liaisons beyond what is necessary for   someone to answer questions from the nominating committee about the   IAOC.  These obligations include the following:   o  Liaisons are responsible for ensuring the nominating committee in      general and the Chair in particular execute their assigned duties      in the best interest of the IETF community.   o  Liaisons from the IESG, IAB, and Internet Society Board of      Trustees (if one is appointed) are expected to review the      operation and execution process of the nominating committee and to      report any concerns or issues to the Chair of the nominating      committee immediately.  If they cannot 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; such responsibilities may not conflict with      any other provisions of this document.   Finally, as mentioned inSection 4.6 of [RFC7437], 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 discussion participants   whether there was an intentional decision to make liaisons voted onto   the nominating committee eligible to be substitute Chairs.  That   potential change is out of scope for this specification but may be a   conversation worth having separately.Dawkins                   Best Current Practice                 [Page 7]

RFC 8318                 IAOC Advisor for NomCom            January 2018   All of these obligations are important, but there are always at least   two full liaisons from the confirming bodies that are already   responsible for those responsibilities.  It is simply not necessary   to make the job of helping the nominating committee understand the   role and operational practices of the IAOC more demanding than it   must be.   So, requiring the IAOC to name a formal liaison to the nominating   committee isn't justified.A.3.  Why Is This Role Not Required to Be a Sitting IAOC Member?   In addition to the reasons given inAppendix 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.   Many IAOC positions are filled by members who are already members of   IETF leadership and are subject to review by the nominating   committee.  This means that limiting an IAOC liaison to one of the   sitting members would mean that in some years the only individuals   eligible to serve as liaison for the nominating committee would be   sitting members of the IAOC that a) were appointed by the previous   nominating committee and are not being by the current nominating   committee, or b) were appointed by the IAB or IESG and are not being   reviewed by the current IAB or IESG.  "Eligible" does not also mean   "willing and able to serve", so it is possible that an IAOC might   find itself with no sitting member to send as advisor in some years.   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   sufficient 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 qualified   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, orDawkins                   Best Current Practice                 [Page 8]

RFC 8318                 IAOC Advisor for NomCom            January 2018   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.   The suggestion is, in fact, a suggestion; the nominating committee   still votes to invite this advisor as they would vote to invite any   advisor, as described inSection 4.3 of [RFC7437].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 draft versions of this   document.   The input provided by Joel Halpern (2008-2009 nominating committee   Chair) and Michael Richardson (2014-2015 nominating committee Chair)   is 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.Author's Address   Spencer Dawkins   Wonder Hamster Internetworking LLC   Email: spencerdawkins.ietf@gmail.comDawkins                   Best Current Practice                 [Page 9]