RFC 8713 provides guidelines for the "IAB, IESG, IETF Trust, and IETF LLC
Selection, Confirmation, and Recall Process: Operation of the IETF Nominating
and Recall Committees". Within this process, the IAB has several roles:
According to Section 4.8 of RFC 8713, the IAB appoints a liaison to the IETF
NomCom.
Section 4.7 of RFC 8713 describes the role and responsibilities of the
liaisons. The IAB also provides the IAB-defined guidelines for the IAB
liaison (as summarized below) to the NomCom chair to ensure that expectations
are clear from the start.
The IAB is responsible for providing the NomCom chair with the list of IAB
positions to be reviewed.
The IAB is responsible for providing a summary of the expertise desired of
the candidates selected for their respective open positions to the NomCom
chair. This is provided in the form of the IAB Job
Description.
These guidelines apply when the liaison is speaking to NomCom in their
liaison role.The person who fills the liaison role may also provide personal feedback
to NomCom but only through communication channels available to general
IETF participants (e.g. the feedback web form). When interacting with
the NomCom through liaison channels, the liaison will represent the
views of the IAB rather than personal opinion.
When the Liaison is speaking to NomCom in their liaison role it should
not be possible for the NomCom to determine the Liaison's personal
opinion about a particular candidate. Liaisons should stick to facts
and views that the Liaison believes represent the consensus of the
IAB. The Liaison should avoid personal opinions.Follow NomCom Liaison Rules in RFC 8713, which includes:
Liaisons are expected to represent the views of their respective
organizations during the deliberations of the committee. They
should provide information as requested or when they believe it
would be helpful to the committee.Act in the best interest of the IETF.
Meta-guideline:
When any of the four guidelines are in conflict, the liaison will use
their best judgment to resolve the conflict. Guideline 1 should override
guideline 3 when they are in conflict.
So that the Nomcom is not later surprised, it is important to point them to the
confirmation process and the materials we want. Note that we ask for CVs, but
candidates don't actually have to submit CVs and many don't.
It is extremely important that the IAB Liaison to the IETF NomCom provide the
full list of IAB-required confirming materials to the NomCom chair at the start
of the NomCom. This enables the NomCom and NomCom chair to ensure that willing
nominees for IESG positions are made aware that required supporting materials
will be provided to the IAB should they be put forth as the nominee of choice
by the NomCom. Permission to share these materials with the IAB (as confirming
body), to include CVs and questionnaire responses, should be requested in
advance by the NomCom chair when the materials are submitted to the NomCom. The
NomCom may wish to provide questionnaires which include sections that the
candidate is comfortable sharing (e.g., "To Be Shared with Confirming Body"),
and sections which will not be distributed beyond the NomCom members (e.g., Not
to be distributed beyond the NomCom - "Joe and Sally are mean").
The following process will be used by the IAB for confirmation of nominated
candidates for vacant IESG positions:
The IAB will undertake its best endeavour to make a confirmation decision
according to this process within the stipulated time period allowed for
confirmation, and not allow the decision process to lapse. If there are
extenuating circumstances that do not permit the IAB to make a decision
within the necessary timeframe, then these circumstances shall be addressed
as appropriate.
There shall be a positive vote for confirmation. The confirmation is
considered an IAB decision and follows the process documented in
IAB_Decisions. If that process does not lead to a
positive vote, the candidate is rejected.
Usually the confirmation of the entire slate is brought to an IAB vote as a
single decision. However, if the IAB fails to reach consensus on the entire
slate, the IAB can split the vote into multiple votes, each for a portion of
the slate, so that some of the candidates can be confirmed.
The IETF chair is disqualified from voting or participating in the discussion
on the IESG slate or IESG candidates. The IAB may ask the IETF chair
questions about the needs of the IESG prior to the IAB being advised of a
nominated candidate.
If any voting IAB member is a candidate for an IESG position, they must
recuse themselves and are disqualified from voting or participating in the
discussion for that specific confirmaiton. The vote is split to allow these
recused members to participate in the vote to confirm other IESG positions.
In the event that a sitting IAB member was nominated to replace a mid-term
vacancy in the IESG, then, upon confirmation of the initial nomination, the
Nominations Committee would need to undertake a subsequent nominations
process for the IAB mid-term vacancy.
In undertaking due diligence in its role as the confirming body for nominations
to the Internet Engineering Steering Group the IAB would like to advise all
Nominating Committees of its expectations in terms of provided material.
When submitting the name of each candidate the IAB requests that the following
items of material, clearly separated and labeled, be provided to the IAB at the
same time:
Resume or CV of the candidate
Summary of the IETF feedback on the candidate
Summary of the IETF community feedback on the state of the Area and its
current needs
The Nominating Committee's conclusions of the qualifications required for the
position
Nominating Committee's view of the qualifications of the candidate to
undertake the role associated with the position
Candidate's statement to the Nominating Committee on the position, conveyed
to the IAB with the candidate's knowledge and assent
The IAB recognizes that the Nominating Committee may solicit information that
nominees provide for the exclusive use of the Nominating Committee, not to be
shared with confirming bodies. The IAB understands that the Nominating
Committee will not provide this information to the IAB.
The IAB will not disclose this material outside of those IAB members who have
the responsibility to consider the nomination.
While IAB members are responsible for recusing themselves from any
deliberations with which they may have been a willing nominee or perceived some
other conflict, the IAB NomCom liaison should ensure extra caution is exercised
during this phase. The proposed IESG slate from the NomCom should NOT be
distributed to the general iab@ list, as that list contains IAB liaison, to
include the IESG->IAB liaison, who themselves may be up for consideration, as
well as the IETF chair. A specific list with just voting members minuses the
IETF chair should be employed. iab-confirmation@ has been used for this purpose
in the past.
Additionally, if members of the IAB have recused themselves, then specific
lists should be provisioned to accommodate this, for example, if a member has
recused themselves from APPS, iab-confirm-apps@ might be employed. It is
advised that these lists, like the general iab@ list, NOT be archived and that
they be deleted once the confirmation process is complete.
Members must recuse themselves from deliberations and voting for an area if
they are a willing nominee for that IESG position.
They should also recuse themselves if they perceive a significant personal
conflict of interest with regard to consideration of a given position. (E.g.,
spouse agreed to be considered for an IESG position). In general, IAB members
should identify such potential conflicts of interest, and the IAB can determine
whether it merits recusal from the IAB confirmation process.
Response to (2012) nomcom chair about timeline was:
IAB commit to confirming the slate within 30 days of receiving it. IAB will
provide either a confirmation or rejection or questions/comments to nomcom
within 15 days of receiving the slate. Since IAB meets on wednesdays, receiving
the slate or any communication by the preceding monday shall help to speed up
the process.
Moreover, IAB expects to receive the following information from nomcom:
Resume or CV of the candidate
Summary of the IETF feedback on the candidate
Summary of the IETF community feedback on the state of the Area and it’s
current needs
The Nominating Committee’s conclusions of the qualifications required for the
position
Nominating Committee’s view of the qualifications of the candidate to
undertake the role associated with the position
Candidate’s statement to the Nominating Committee on the position, conveyed
to the IAB with the candidate’s knowledge and assent
The IAB recognizes that the Nominating Committee may solicit information that
nominees provide for the exclusive use of the Nominating Committee, not to be
shared with confirming bodies. The IAB understands that the Nominating
Committee will not provide this information to the IAB. The IAB will not
disclose this material outside of those IAB members who have the responsibility
to consider the nomination.
One of the considerations to take into account when selecting a liaison is the
affiliation. The observation that all liaisons to the nomcom were from the same
affiliation has raised eyebrows in the community at one point.
If a liaison sees process violations or other issues, they should first attempt
to resolve this issues with the NomCom chair. Beyond this, they should seek
advice from the NomCom Advisor/Past Chair, and if these means are exhausted
discuss the issue with the Internet Society President, who appoints the chair.
If no conflict arises, the IAB chair might be consulted first.
While it is not the liaisons responsibility to provide the NomCom with the
names of IAB incumbents willing to serve another term, or the list of
incumbents planning to step down, the liaison should remind IAB members whose
terms are expiring explicitly of the deadlines for nominations and ensure that
they share their intentions with the NomCom before the deadline is reached.
The IAB IETF NomCom liaison should be prepared to provide periodic updates on
the NomCom's progress to the IAB. The bi-weekly IAB business meetings provide
an ideal venue for this, although during the early stages of the NomCom this
may become a bit monotonous. In particular, any issues that might raise alarm,
and any information regarding NomCom progress and delivery dates, or changes
thereof, should be communicated to the NomCom in a timely manner. This is
particularly important as the confirmation stage approaches, in order to
accommodate scheduling of confirmation meeting calls, agenda time and other
logistics.