Re: deadlock problem

[James M Galvin <galvin+ietf-nomcom@eListX.com>]

Speaking for myself, the NOMCOM document should not say anything about
the voting rules of a confirming body.

However, if that's not possible I only agree with the first sentence of
Ran's Proposal A because the second sentence is a fundamental process
change and I object to it.


In its entirety, Ran's Proposal A is:

    (Proposal A)

    		For a given nominee to be confirmed, at least one-half
    	     of the sitting members of the confirming bodies must agree
    	     to confirm that nominee.  Nominees that are not confirmed
    	     under this rule are considered to be rejected.

The first sentence is fine insofar as it removes the ambiguity without
removing the "positive" intent of the original statement.

However, the second sentence presents a rule that has not been discussed
during this revision.  Further, it gives control to the confirming body
because now if they don't like a candidate all they have to do is not
vote (thus not take responsibility for their decision).

This document is largely ambiguous when it comes to a tie, and I would
argue this is by design.  Over the years we have resolved some conflicts
and ties, but generally we resolve them in favor of the NOMCOM, not the
confirming body.  For example, in the case of a mid-term vacancy the
failure of confirming body to actually confirm a candidate results in
automatic confirmation, not rejection.

The second sentence resolves the conflict (or indecision) in favor of
the confirming body and I think this is wrong.

Jim