IAB, IESG, and IAOC Selection, Confirmation, and Recall Process: IAOC Advisor for the Nominating Committee

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 ). This document updates .

Please direct questions and comments to the IETF-Nomcom mailing list, at https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf-nomcom. The subscribers to the IETF Discussion mailing list will likely be grateful for that.

When RFC 7437 was approved, it explicitly charged the Nominating Committee with selecting and reviewing certain members of the IAOC. However, did not provide for the IAOC to send a liaison to the Nominating Committee. This was not thought to be an obstacle, because 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 , appointing an IAOC member for term longer than two years. In 2017, the NomCom selected 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. . This specification adds the previously ad hoc role to , so future Nominating Committees will be less likely to overlook it.

Discussions about this topic led to the recognition that "Liaison" was not the best description of this role. The role of Liaison defined in , Section 4.7 places some significant obligations on Liaisons that aren't necessary for Nominating Committee to ask questions and get answers about the IAOC that come up in deliberations. These obligations include 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. 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. 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. , Section 4.8 requires the IESG and IAB liaisons to be sitting members of the organization they represent. 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. Although past IAOC Liaisions to the Nominating Committee have all been sitting members of the IAOC, after 10 years of IAOC operation, it is thought that other members of the community have sufficent experience to provide guidance if the IAOC chooses to provide such a person. Finally, in ,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 he prior year's Chair or designee. 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.

The editor of this document briefly considered proposing a new and IAOC-specific role to , but considered such a proposal to be too 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 of the IAOC itself could be changing in a relatively short period of time. Instead, the decision was made to describe how the IAOC provides an Advisor to the Nominating Committee, building on mature text that has survived many Nominating Committee cycles. After investigation, 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 would be filled by 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 and any other advisor that requires an update to , is that committee members are explicitly encouraged to suggest that an advisor be appointed, as described in this specification. The text updating is found in .

This section provides the updated BCP text for . For each OLD text selection, NEW text is provided that replaces the OLD text in .

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.

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

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

Thanks to Alissa Cooper, Alvaro Retana, Leslie Daigle, Russ Housley, and Ted Hardie for providing feedback on questions arising during work on early versions of this document.