There appears to be general consensus that the current assignments of responsibility and the selection process are working moderately well, so it is not anticipated that there will be large changes. Nonetheless, some issues have been raised and need review. Among these are:
o There is a complex interplay between the IETF area structure and the selection process for the IESG. The IESG has the power to create, split, merge and remove areas, but the nominations committee has the responsibility to fill positions. The IESG needs some flexibility to balance work loads, use its people effectively, and meet the changing needs of the IETF. The current rules are not completely clear as to how to handle all of the likely situations; these need to be spelled out and agreed to.
o The nominations committee has non-voting liaisons from the IESG and IAB. Both nominations committees also had current IAB or IESG members, who volunteered and were selected at random, as voting members. It has been suggested that current IESG and IAB members carry too much weight in the deliberations and should be barred from serving on the nominations committee.
o The selection and role of the nominations committee chair is somewhat unclear. In particular, what power does the chair have to deal with unresponsive committee members and/or to resolve disputes?
o At what point, if any, does the nominations committee's list of candidates become public. This ties in with the apparent double- standard of how publically incumbents vs. non-incumbents announce their candidacy.
o The way to handle interim appointments is not clear. Two specific issues are: who appoints interim members (and is ``ratification'' required), and how long does interim appointees serve?
o When the nominations committee has completed its work, it informs the IAB and the ISOC Trustees. The procedures for doing so need to be spelled out. At issue is when the nominations become public, whether the community at large is invited to comment, and what to do if there is difficulty in filling any of the positions.
o There is currently no specific mechanism for the IAB to use to provide architectural guidance to working groups before the RFC submission stage. POISED may discuss whether such a mechanism is necessary, and if so, what that mechanism looks like.
o The role of the IRTF and research groups has not yet been defined.
o Should there be a regular mechanism for convening a POISED Working Group in the future?
o The ISOC Trustees require that the procedures adopted meet with the approval of counsel and the insurance carriers in order to protect the Society from exposure. The procedures, rules, etc. adopted by the community will most likely be satisfactory to counsel, but input and review from counsel is essential.
In its deliberations, POISED may produce new documents (e.g., an IETF Charter -- if the lack of such a charter delays the POISED effort), and it may request changes to existing documents (e.g., ``The IAB Charter'' [RFC 1601], ``The Internet Standards Process -- Version 2'' [RFC 1602], and ``IETF Working Group Guidelines and Procedures'' [RFC 1603]).