[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [ietf-nomcom Home]
Subject: Re: Response to IESG Issues on 2727bis
Avri and all,
Biases are and have been very prevalent in the IAB and the IESG
for a few years now, and in my opinion getting much worse. Harald
is good case in point given his long standing and known display if
preferring bias in the ICANN DNSO/GNSO on far to many occasions.
Hence, I am in agreement that personal egregious displays of specific
personal bias should be very strongly discouraged if not eliminated
within the IAB or the IESG...
Avri Doria wrote:
> This is a draft of a note I am planning to send Harald as General Area
> AD once the week's discussion period had passed and I ask the IESG to
> re-review the draft.
>
> It is built around the same message I sent to the list when we
> initially started to review the issues from the IESG's first review.
>
> Corrections and comments please!
>
> a.
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> -----------
> Issue 1-3 are 'showstopper" Issues that must be resolved before the
> document will be allowed to proceed.
>
> ------------------
> IESG Issue 1:
> ------------------
>
> > The first 2 substantive issue was raised by Margaret Wasserman:
> > -------------------------------------------------------------
> >> In section 2:
> >> The nominating committee will be given the title of the positions
> >> to be reviewed and a brief description of the desirable set of
> >> qualifications of the candidate that is nominated to fill each
> >> position.
> >
> > Is this information sent publicly or privately? There are two issues
> > here:
> >
> > 1) I think that the "description of the desirable set of
> > qualifications"
> > should be posted publicly, along with the list of open positions when
> > the call for nominations is sent.
> >
> > 2) The IESG and IAB should know, unambiguously, whether or not the
> > information will be publicly disseminated before providing it.
> >
>
> This issue was discussed extensively in the WG. There were strong
> voices both for and against distribution of qualifications. Part of
> the discussion rested on the idea that it was the Nomcom that actually
> decided on qualifications and the IAB/IESG input was a recommendation.
> Part of the discussion related to the degree to which this information
> would bind the Nomcom in its deliberations. And part of the issue
> related to transparency and the degree to which release of the
> information could provide a basis for appeal.
>
> The issue was eventually decided in a compromise that stated that the
> requesting body would provide a brief summary of the expertise they
> desired in a successful candidate. It was also decided that this
> expertise would be released when the postions were announced after the
> Nomcom was operational. Further it was made explicit that the Nomcom
> decided on the appropriate qualifications taking all input into
> account.
>
> Specific changes:
>
> (Note: all changes cut from diff based on: Feb 23 09:52 2004 diff -bBlt
> draft-ietf-nomcom-rfc2727bis-07.txt draft-ietf-nomcom-rfc2727bis-09.txt
> )
>
> Page 5
>
> 274,276c271,274
> < to be reviewed and a brief description of the desirable set of
> < qualifications of the candidate that is nominated to fill each
> < position.
> ---
> > to be reviewed and a brief summary of the desired expertise of
> > the candidate that is nominated to fill each position.
> >
> >
>
> Page 8
>
> 410,411c420,421
> < The IESG and IAB are responsible for providing a list of
> the
> < qualifications desired of the candidates selected for their
> ---
> > The IESG and IAB are responsible for providing summary of
> the
> > expertise desired of the candidates selected for their
>
> Page 22
>
> 1164,1165c1218,1220
> < 10. The Chair announces the open positions to be reviewed and the
> < call for nominees.
> ---
> > 10. The Chair announces the open positions to be reviewed, the
> > desired expertise provided by the IETF Executive Director, and
> > the call for nominees.
>
> Page 23
>
> 1213,1214c1268,1269
> < committee must determine if the desired qualifications for the
> < open positions matches its understanding of the qualifications
> ---
> > committee must determine if the desired expertise for the open
> > positions matches its understanding of the qualifications
>
> Page 29
>
> 1584,1585c1637,1638
> < desirable set of qualifications for the candidate to be
> < nominated for each position.
> ---
> > desirable expertise for each candidate to be nominated for
> each
> > position.
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> -----------------
> IESG Issue 2
> -----------------
> > raised by Margaret Wasserman:
>
> >> From section 3, subsection 8:
> >> It is consistent with these rules for the announcements of a
> >> resignation, of the existence of a mid-term vacancy, and of the
> >> confirmed candidates to all occur at the same time as long as the
> >> actual sequence of events that occurred did so in the following
> >> order.
> >>
> >> * The nominating committee completes the advice and consent
> >> process for the candidate already sitting on another body.
> >>
> >> * The newly confirmed candidate resigns from their current
> >> position.
> >>
> >> * The body with the new mid-term vacancy requests that the
> >> nominating committee fill the position.
> >>
> >> * The Executive Director of the IETF informs the nominating
> >> committee of the mid-term vacancy.
> >>
> >> * The nominating committee acts on the request to fill the
> >> mid-term vacancy
> >
> > This section indicates that a position may be vacated and filled
> > without the community being notified that a position is open. IMO, no
> > position should be filled without public notice that the position is
> > open and a public call for nominations.
> >
> > I understand one shool of thought that says that this is okay for IAB
> > positions during the normal selection cycle. Because IAB members
> > don't have separate responsibilities, it _might_ be okay to pick 6 IAB
> > members from a candidate pool for 5 open positions, for example.
> > However, even in this case, the community might want to know if a
> > person with a particular specialty/area of expertise was moving, so
> > that folks with that type of expertise could be nominated.
> >
> > This section would also be problematic for IESG positions. This could
> > arise in any case where one IESG position is filled by a sitting IESG
> > member who is not up for renewal. For example, consider a situation
> > where the IESG chair does not volunteer for another term and is
> > replaced by a sitting IESG member who is not up for renewal. Even
> > though there are two ADs for most areas, the ADs often divide up the
> > area into logical sections, requiring different expertise for each
> > position.
> >
> > There are also issues with filling any postition according to this
> > section if it is applied to interim vacancies. For example, the
> > nomcom should not be empowered to move an IAB member to the IESG to
> > fill and interim vacancy and replace the IAB member without making a
> > public call for nominations for the open IAB position.
>
> This issue was extensively discussed and the rough consensus was that
> while it was important that the IESG position vacated by poaching be
> announced and a full midterm procedure be instituted , that this was
> not necessary in the case of an IAB position during the annual nomcom
> process. The solution provided does not distinguish why the IESG
> position is being vacated, i.e. poaching from one Area to another area
> would be treated the same as poaching to place one on the IAB.
>
> Specific changes:
>
> 485,487c497,509
> < 8. The following rules apply to nominees who are currently sitting
> < members of the IESG or IAB, and who are not sitting in an open
> < position being filled by the nominating committe.
> ---
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Galvin Expires August 16, 2004 [Page
> 9]
> >
> > Internet-Draft IAB and IESG Selection February
> 2004
> >
> >
> > 8. The following rules apply to nominees candidates who are
> > currently sitting members of the IESG or IAB, and who are not
> > sitting in an open position being filled by the nominating
> > committe.
> 495c517,518
> < the mid-term vacancy.
> ---
> > the mid-term vacancy according to the rules for a mid-term
> > vacancy documented elsewhere in this document.
> 500,505c523,526
> < candidate is announced for the new position.
> <
> <
> <
> < Galvin Expires February 4, 2004 [Page
> 9]
> <
> ---
> > candidate is announced for the new position. The process,
> > according to rules set out elsewhere in this document, of
> filling
> > the seat vacated by the confirmed candidate may begin as soon
> as
> > the vacancy is publicly announced.
> 510,511c531,534
> < respect to filling the open positions and then separately
> submit
> < a candidate to fill a mid-term vacancy.
> ---
> > respect to filling the open positions and then separately
> proceed
> > with the task of filling the mid-term vacancy according to the
> > rules for a mid-term vacancy documented elsewhere in this
> > document.
> 513,517c536,543
> < It is consistent with these rules for the announcements of a
> < resignation, of the existence of a mid-term vacancy, and of the
> < confirmed candidates to all occur at the same time as long as
> the
> < actual sequence of events that occurred did so in the following
> < order.
> ---
> > However, the following exception is permitted in the case where
> > the candidate for an open position is currently a sitting
> member
> > of the IAB. It is consistent with these rules for the
> > announcements of a resignation of a sitting member of the IAB
> and
> > of the confirmed candidate for the mid-term vacancy created by
> > that sitting member on the IAB to all occur at the same time as
>
> Feb 23 09:52 2004 diff -bBlt draft-ietf-nomcom-rfc2727bis-07.txt
> draft-ietf-nomcom-rfc2727bis-09.txt Page 6
>
> > long as the actual sequence of events that occurred did so in
> the
> > following order.
> 520c546,547
> < process for the candidate already sitting on another body.
> ---
> > process for the open position being filled by the candidate
> > currently sitting on the IAB.
> 523c550
> < position.
> ---
> > position on the IAB.
> 525c552
> < * The body with the new mid-term vacancy requests that the
> ---
> > * The IAB with the new mid-term vacancy requests that the
> 527a555,561
> >
> >
> > Galvin Expires August 16, 2004 [Page
> 10]
> >
> > Internet-Draft IAB and IESG Selection February
> 2004
> >
> >
> 532c566
> < mid-term vacancy
> ---
> > mid-term vacancy.
>
> > ----------------------------------------------------------------
>
> ------------------
> IESG Issue 3;
> ------------------
> > The third substantive issue was raised by Thomas Narten:
> >
> >> Liaisons from the IESG, IAB, and Internet Society Board of
> >> Trustees are expected to review the operation and executing
> >> process of the nominating committee and to report any concerns
> >> or issues to the Chair of the nominating committee immediately.
> >> If they can not resolve the issue between themselves liaisons
> >> must report the issue to their respective bodies. If their
> >> respective body agrees that there is an issue the liaison must
> >> report it according to the dispute resolution process stated
> >> elsewhere in this document.
> >
> > I worry that there will be problems with the above in practice. In
> > particular, the text requires that a liaison report problems back to
> > their respective group (i.e., IESG or IAB) before invoking the formal
> > dispute resolution mechanism. But confidentiality rules rather limit
> > what the liaison can say to their body, and in the case where dispute
> > resolution may need invoking, it seems like details will be
> > important. I worry that this will create problems in practice, with it
> > being unclear what can be said. And if that is the case, it is unclear
> > what value the discussion within the respective I* would actually
> > have. This is perhaps more a problem for the IESG, since it has no
> > confirming role, but it seems like a general issue.
> >
>
-snip -
>
>
> In previous WG discussions, the principle of avoiding too much
> discussion of the internal working of the IAB/IESG was upheld by rough
> consensus. The principle of doing approximately half, no matter what
> the internal organization has been part of the design since the early
> days of the Nomcom. There was no consensus for including more
> information.
>
> No change was made.
>
> -----------------
> IESG Issue 20
> -----------------
>
> > Margaret Wasserman:
> >
> > Comment:
> > EDITORIAL:
> >
> >> Abstract
> >>
> >> The process by which the members of the IAB and IESG are selected,
> >> confirmed, and recalled is specified. This document is a
> >> self-consistent, organized compilation of the process as it was known
> >> at the time of publication.
> >
> > Very weak... I also don't think that the last sentence is true,
> > as this document changes some things. Suggestions: Add a bit
> > more information (i.e mention the Nominations Commitee?) and remove
> > "as it was known at the time of publication".
>
> No change made. There was no consensus for making a change.
> -----------------
> IESG Issue 21
> -----------------
>
> >
> > The section numbering in this document doesn't match usual
> > conventions. This makes it harder to refer to sections in this
> > document unambiguously.
>
> Agree,d though it is possible. While there was some support for asking
> the editor to reorganize the document at this late date there no was
> consensus for requiring it.
>
> -----------------
> IESG Issue 22
> -----------------
>
> >
> >> 3. One-half of each of the then current IESG and IAB positions is
> >> selected to be reviewed each year.
> >
> > s/One-half of each of/One-half of/
> > s/positions is/positions are/
> >
> >> The intent of this rule to ensure the review of approximately
> >> one-half of each of the IESG and IAB sitting members each year.
> >
> > s/one-half of each of/one-half of/
>
> This was not seen as a purely editorial change. There is a small
> chance that saying one half of the IAB and IESG could be interpreted as
> one half of the total membership regardless of distribution between the
> two groups as opposed to one half of each.
>
> No change was made
> -----------------
> IESG Issue 23
> -----------------
>
> >
> >> 4. Confirmed candidates are expected to serve at least a 2 year
> >> term.
> >
> > This isn't always true. Replacement candidates may serve
> > terms of less than two years.
>
> Same as issue 11
>
> -----------------
> IESG Issue 24
> -----------------
>
> >
> >> A term may begin or end no sooner than the
> >> first day of the meeting and no later than the last day of the
> >> meeting as determined by the mutual agreement of the currently
> >> sitting member and the confirmed candidate. The confirmed
> >> candidate's term may overlap the sitting member's term during the
> >> meeting as determined by their mutual agreement.
> >
> > How does this apply to IAB terms? In the case where there is
> > more than one new IAB member, I don't think that it is
> > defined which IAB member each new member is replacing.
>
> This was made more explicit and the cases of IESG and IAB terms were
> separated.
>
> 327,332d329
> < confirmed. All confirmed candidate terms begin during the
> First
> < IETF meeting corresponding to the beginning of the term for
> which
> < they were confirmed. Normally, the confirmed candidate's term
> < begins when the currently sitting member's term ends on the
> last
> < day of the meeting. A term may begin or end no sooner than the
> < first day of the meeting and no later than the last day of the
> 336c333
> < Galvin Expires February 4, 2004 [Page
> 6]
> ---
> > Galvin Expires August 16, 2004 [Page
> 6]
> 338c335
> < Internet-Draft IAB and IESG Selection August
> 2003
> ---
> > Internet-Draft IAB and IESG Selection February
> 2004
> 340a338,345
> > confirmed. All confirmed candidate terms begin during the
> First
> > IETF meeting corresponding to the beginning of the term for
> which
> > they were confirmed.
> >
> > For confirmed candidates of the IESG the terms begin no later
> > than when the currently sitting members' terms end on the last
> > day of the meeting. A term may begin or end no sooner than the
> > first day of the meeting and no later than the last day of the
> 342c347
> < sitting member and the confirmed candidate. The confirmed
> ---
> > sitting member and the confirmed candidate. A confirmed
> 345a351,356
> > For confirmed candidates of the IAB the terms overlap with the
> > terms of the sitting members for the entire week of the
> meeting.
> >
> > For candidates confirmed under the mid-term vacancy rules, the
> > term begins as soon as possible after the confirmation.
> >
>
> -----------------
> IESG Issue 25
> -----------------
>
> >> In section 4, subsection 7:
> >> Liaisons from the IESG, IAB, and Internet Society Board of
> >> Trustees are expected to review the operation and executing
> >> process of the nominating committee and to report any concerns
> >
> > There is a mention here of a liaison from the ISOC board.
> > But, there in section 4.3 there is a list of nomcom members
> > that indicates how they are selected, and the ISOC liaison
> > is not listed.
>
> A change was made to indicate that the ISCO BoT may appoint a liaison.
> In keeping with cases of IAB and IESG liaisons, the methods of their
> doing so is left to them.
>
> 755,758c805
> < 9. The Internet Society Board of Trustees may appoint a liaison
> to
> < the nominating committee.
> -----------------
> IESG Issue 26
> -----------------
>
> >
> > The organization of this document seems to result in repeating
> > a lot of information. There are also a lot of forward
> > references. This makes it difficult to find the part(s) of
> > the document that apply to a particular part of the process.
> >
> >
>
> While the document could possibly benefit from reorganizing and
> rewriting, the decision to do so was not made.
>
> a.
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------
> 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 134k members/stakeholders strong!)
"Be precise in the use of words and expect precision from others" -
Pierre Abelard
"If the probability be called P; the injury, L; and the burden, B;
liability depends upon whether B is less than L multiplied by
P: i.e., whether B is less than PL."
United States v. Carroll Towing (159 F.2d 169 [2d Cir. 1947]
===============================================================
Updated 1/26/04
CSO/DIR. Internet Network Eng. SR. Eng. Network data security
IDNS. div. of Information Network Eng. INEG. INC.
E-Mail jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com
Registered Email addr with the USPS
Contact Number: 214-244-4827
----------------------------------------------------------------
To subscribe or unsubscribe from this elist use the subscription
manager: <http://lists.elistx.com/subscribe>
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [ietf-nomcom Home]
Powered by eList eXpress LLC