Re: Re: Notes from one member of the IAB on the current draft

[Michael StJohns <mstjohns@mindspring.com>]

Hi Brian -

I appreciate that you disagree, but you haven't provided any reasoning
behind your thoughts so its difficult for me to make any further comment. 
I've supported my thoughts, it would be helpful to me and probably to others
if you would provide more detail than that you simply disagree.

See below for a comment on the specific item you commented on.

-------Original Message-------
From: Brian E Carpenter <brian@hursley.ibm.com>
Sent: 03/25/03 12:18 PM
To: Michael StJohns <mstjohns@mindspring.com>
Subject: Re: Notes from one member of the IAB on the current draft

> 
> Mike, I can only repeat that I simply don't see any of these aspects as
problems,
except for one logical issue you point out:

> During the
>   > >            course of the consultation the nominating committee may
>   > >            re-examine the slate of candidates and may change it in 

any
>   > >            way.
>   > 
> 
> 
> 
> This implies that the candidates already confirmed by the confirming
body could be withdrawn.  I think that's a *really
> really really* bad idea and unfair to the confirmed candidates.  

Well, all this process remains under the seal of confidentiality, so
the confirmed candidates would never know. But I agree, it would be very
bizarre to withdraw a nomination at this stage, although I can imagine
an AD nominee being renominated to a different Area or even to IETF Chair,
after the confirming body rejected a nominee. So we need a sentence
that enables NomCom to react flexibly to a rejection, without endorsing
egregious actions.

   During the course of the consultation, the nominating committee may
   adjust the slate of candidates in response to the confirming body's
   partial confirmation, by replacing the nominees who were not already
   confirmed, and in the case of the IESG, possibly by changing the
positions 
   to which already confirmed candidates are appointed.

     Brian


This is actually already in the text in other places - in fact in the
paragraph following the one referenced.  And I repeat - it is not and should
not be a consultive communication - the confirming body should be free to
deliberate without undue influence from the Nomcom.  The confirming body
should be free to seek information, it should not be soliciting opinion from the 
Nomcom past that implied by the submission of the particular candidate.