On Mar 7, 2008, at 3:21 PM, Brian E Carpenter wrote: > > Fully agree. In fact, given that the IAB expectations have been on > the web for >4 years, it's surprising this debate hasn't happened > before. One might argue that it has, and it's specifically what prompted clarify - yet still ambiguous text regarding precisely what constitutes 'testimony' in RFC 3777. > My opinion: There's nothing in 3777 that limits the supporting > information that NomCom may provide to the confirming body, > although this would be clearer if section 5 point 14 included the > words "at least". > > The confirming body is explicitly allowed to "communicate with > the nominating committee both to explain the reason why all the > candidates were not confirmed and to understand the nominating > committee's rationale for its candidates." What isn't quite clear > in this is whether this communication can be interim (i.e. "we need > to know more about X and Y before we can confirm them"). > Rationally, that should be allowed. And practically speaking, one would hope that communication occurs. > However, my feeling is that the IAB requirements listed since > 2003 look more like second-guessing the NomCom than I believe > was intended by the consensus behind 3777. I don't want to > criticise the IAB for performing due diligence, or to suggest > that they can't be trusted with the confidential information, > but should they really be checking NomCom's every move? That > was not the practice up through 2002. This all depends on ones definition of 'confirmation', which is still clearly ambiguous according to RFC 3777 and interpretation varies from NomCom to NomCom, confirming body to confirming body, and year to year. What I can say as an individual having participated on 4 recent NomComs (one as voting member, one as chair, one as advisor, one as IAB liaison), is this.. 1) Being a NomCom member is an incredible amount of work 2) Nothing is more frustrating than the integrity of the NomCom being questioned, or for the NomCom to feel as though it's being second guessed 3) The role of the confirming body is, IMO, ambiguous, but it's something I can assure you the IAB takes _very seriously, and with good reason. I consider the current process sufficiently flexible, although items 2 & 3 above tend to create tension, and less ambiguity in this area would clearly be of benefit, in particular to the parties involved on the NomCom or a confirming body. -danny _______________________________________________ IETF mailing list IETF@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf