At 20:17 16-03-2008, Brian E Carpenter wrote: >I believe that it's appropriate for the confirming bodies to ask for >additional information if they have reason to doubt that due proces >has been followed or that some of the proposed appointees are suitable. The nominating committee selects candidates which, in their opinion, fits the requirements they have been given and which they believe will be able to contribute in such as way as to improve the body. The confirming body are there to determine whether the requirements are met. They may have to understand the rationale for the selection if they find it inappropriate. >I agree that they are inside the confidentiality boundary, too, and >this should be made clear to all concerned. What I don't like about There is an expectation that the information provided to the nominating committee is confidential. The confirming body needs some information to determine whether the candidate fits the stated requirements. >http://www.iab.org/documents/docs/2003-07-23-nomcom.html >is that the materials are requested a priori, as if *every* NomCom >choice is suspect. I think these are questions that should only be >asked if the confirming body has specific reason to query a choice. >(With one exception: it is quite reasonable to request a resume or CV >a priori.) That's the expectations of the IAB in support of a nomination. It is reasonable for the nomination committee to provide a brief resume to the confirming body. Turning the expectations of the confirming body into preconditions for the nominating committee's selection may be perceived as undermining the role of the nominating committee. Regards, -sm _______________________________________________ IETF mailing list IETF@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf