All the points being raised are very worthy of discussion and I suggest these be considered and clarified in a future update to RFC 5680 (should it be needed). Until there is such an update, NomCom must work with RFC 5680 as written. Open Disclosure and Feedback are closely tied per RFC 5680: ----------------------------------------------------------- Note that Section 5, "Disclosing a Nominee List", of RFC 5680 specifically ties disclosing a nominee list "as part of the NomCom's request for feedback from the community". The disclosure by this NomCom is to support the feedback process. There is no language in RFC 5680 for the list to be disclosed for any other purpose. Maybe that is a point to be addressed in the future. Is Disclosure Mandated by RFC 5680: ---------------------------------- No, it is not. RFC 5680 does not require any NomCom to disclose the list at all nor to disclose the entire list for that matter. Since this is the first time the open disclosure has been instituted, NomCom is taking a careful course. In the past, such information was available only to a subset of the community. Now, for this NomCom, it is available to anyone in the community who wants it and it is easy to obtain. How to disclose has not been specified: --------------------------------------- How the Open Disclosure is implemented is not specified in RFC 5680. If the community wants to specify this in detail for future NomCom's that can certainly be done. Summary: -------- The purpose of Open Disclosure is to allow feedback from the entire community rather than a highly restricted subset. No other purpose has been specified. For NomCom to do more than what RFC 5680 specifies would be to over step its bounds. Tom Walsh Chair, NomCom 2010-2011 -----Original Message----- From: ietf-bounces@xxxxxxxx [mailto:ietf-bounces@xxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Ross Callon Sent: Wednesday, September 22, 2010 12:28 PM To: dcrocker@xxxxxxxx Cc: IETF discussion list; NomCom Chair Subject: RE: Nomcom 2010-2011: READ THIS: Important Information on Open Disclosure --On Wednesday, September 22, 2010 08:53 -0700 Dave CROCKER <dhc@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > ...On the other hand, the practical reality is that getting an > IETF login is easy > enough to make this issue pretty minor, IMO. I have two thoughts on this: One the one hand, I agree with the part of Dave Crocker's email that getting an IETF login is easy enough that the approach that the current nomcom is taking seems to be workable. Also, I don't think that we want press articles about who is running for IETF leadership positions, who was rejected and who was accepted, and so on. Thus the fact that the current approach makes you agree to keep the names confidential would appear to be a very strong statement to the press not to publish the contents of the list. Ross _______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf _______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf