Proposed set of issues

[avri <avri@sm.luth.se>]

The design team has been working on the first WG deliverable:

May 02  Initial set of issues to be addressed selected

The following is the list of topics as currently understood.
These topics are based on review of the Agenda as it was
previously presented and on the discussions that have been
held on this list over the last months.

Working group members are asked to please review this list
and to comment. Please indicate if there are additions,
deletions or modifications that should be considered.

Once reviewed and modified as necessary by the WG, this
list becomes the initial set of issues the design team will
address. It is important for the members of the WG to voice
their opinions on the individual issues. Many opinions on these
issues have already been expressed in earlier discussions. The
design team will be using that content as well as new discussions
to meet the next milestone:

Jun 02   Revised I-D published

This version will then become the focus of further
discussions and refinements both on the list and in Yokohama.

It is important to mention that just because a topic shows
up on the list does not necessarily mean a change is
required in 2727bis. It is quite possible that after an
exhaustive discussion it will be determined by the WG that a
particular issue is best left as it is currently documented.


Thanks

a.

----------------------------------

In reviewing the issues facing the this Working Group they can be
grouped into several categories.    The categories and the topics that
belong to that category are: 

1. Accountability

The NomCom needs to be accountable to the IETF community through the
approving bodies.  Several methods of making the NomCom more
accountable have been suggested and need to be reviewed: 

- Should the NomCom publish a list of nominees at any point during the
  process?  If yes, then when and how? 

- Should the slate of candidates be presented to the confirming bodies
  with supporting documentation?  Is yes, what documentation?

- Should the ISOC president be able to audit the process in order to
  investigate any alleged improprieties?  Is yes, how should the audit
  process be organized? 

- Should there be an automatic timeout for approval once the
  candidates have been presented to the confirming bodies.  

- Do the liaisons have a specific role  relative to accountability?
       
2. Liaison

- Should there be an ISOC liaison?

- What is the role of a liaison?

3. Process Issues

- Should NomCom information be archived?  If so, for how long and in
  what manner?  Is there a need to get legal advise on the issue of
  information archival? 

- A definition of sitting member of NomCom was added to 2727bis
  section 1.  Is this definition appropriate? 

- A timeframe for the appointment of the NomCom Chair was made
  explicit in 2727bis section 3.2.  Is this timeframe appropriate? 

- Explicit guidance regarding the timeframe for volunteering to serve
  on the nominating committee was added to section 3.4.  Is this
  guidance appropriate? 

- Should the dates for selection of NomCom members be made explicit? 

- Explicit guidance was added to the process of selection the
  nominating committee member to 2727bis in sections 3.6, 3.7.  Is
  this guidance appropriate? 

- How should disputes regard the selection of NomCom members be
  handled? 

- On which lists should NomCom announcements be made?

- Should text be added to the process for recalling a NomCom member?

- Is clarification needed for handling an interim vacancy that occurs
  late in a sitting NomCom's term; i.e. while the new NomCom is being
  formed? 

- Should there be a required set of information provided with a
  nomination? 

- Should a nominee be required to update contact information during
  the process? 

4. Qualifications for selection for the IAB or IESG?

- Should there be term limits for the IAB or IESG?

- Should ADs have experience as WG chairs?

- Can a person, other then the IETF chair, serve on both the IAB and
  the IESG concurrently. (Note: This is not the process question
  involved in short term concurrent service by someone moving from one
  body to the other.) 

General Comment:

In posing the questions there is no presumption made about whether the
proper resolution of an issue is inclusion in the document or not.
For those items where rough consensus is reached for inclusion, it
will need to be determined whether the item is to be included as a
rule or as guidance.   

Should a section on advice covering procedural issues, process,
criteria and the general accumulated wisdom of previous NomComs be
included in the RFC?  Or should this information be collected in a
different manner?  If so, in what manner should it be collected?