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

[Jeff Williams <jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com>]

Brian and all,

  I also have a problem with the term "Consult" in the context in which it
was used.  I would also suggest that everyone ask themselves why
would source "z", as you use it here Brian, have any importance with
consideration "x" and/or "y" ?  And secondly, isn't the consideration
"x" or "y" the important thing, not the source of those or any other
consideration being brought up?

Brian E Carpenter wrote:

> I took a few days off from this thread to pay attention to my day job...
>
> Michael StJohns wrote:
> >
> > 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 body could be withdrawn.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.
>
> OK, you are bothered by the word "consult" in a way that I'm not. I would
> certainly agree to a more neutral word such as "communicate". In the cases
> where I've been involved, the communication has in fact been interrogatory
> (i.e. the confirming body asks the NomCom "Did you consider issue X when
> choosing nominee Y?" or "Did you seek an opinion about nominee Y from
> source Z?").
>
> Now let me try to be constructive. How would you find this as a
> replacement for section 3, paragraph 7 sub paragraph 3 paragraph
> beginning "If some or none..." ?
>
>   If not all the candidates submitted to a confirming body are
>   rapidly confirmed, the confirming body continues to communicate
>   with the nominating committee both to understand the committee's
>   rationale for the slate and, if appropriate, to explain the reason
>   why all the candidates were not confirmed.
>
>   The confirming body may ask the nominating committee for additional
>   information about a nominee, or about the nominating committee's procedure,
>   to assist them in their deliberations. However, the confirming body
>   and the nominating committee must refrain from mutual communication
>   about availability, qualification or characteristics of other possible
>   candidates for the position.
>
> Then extend the following paragraph to become:
>
>   The confirming body may reject individual candidates, in
>   which case the nominating committee must select alternate
>   candidates for the rejected candidates, and in the case of
>   the IESG, may possibly change the positions to which already
>   confirmed candidates are appointed.
>
>      Brian
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------
> To subscribe or unsubscribe from this elist use the subscription
> manager: <http://lists.elistx.com/subscribe>

Regards,
--
Jeffrey A. Williams
Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 129k members/stakeholders strong!)
================================================================
CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng. SR. Eng. Network data security
Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
E-Mail jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com
Contact Number: 214-244-4827 or 214-244-3801