Subject: IESG Statement on NomCom Eligibility and Day Passes

From: IESG Secretary <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 24 May 2010 10:53:38 -0700 (PDT)

RFC 3777 requires that voting members of the nominating committee
(NomCom) be selected from volunteers that have attended at least three
of the last five IETF meetings. The IAOC is conducting a day pass
experiment, making it necessary to clarify the NomCom eligibility rules
to address IETF participants that make use of a day pass. An update to
RFC 3777 will be needed to address this situation if at the end of the
experiment the IAOC decides to make day passes a regular meeting
registration alternative. This statement provides guidance until an
update to RFC 3777 is proposed, reviewed, and approved.

The eligibility requirements of volunteers for NomCom voting member
positions are provided in RFC 3777, which includes:

14. Members of the IETF community must have attended at least 3 of
the last 5 IETF meetings in order to volunteer.

In the context of the day pass experiment, this is interpreted to mean:

14. IETF participants must have attended at least 3 of the last 5
IETF meetings in order to volunteer. Use of a day pass for
meetings prior to April 2010 counts as IETF meeting attendance;
however, use of a day pass for meetings after to April 2010 will
not count as IETF meeting attendance.

---

From: SM <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 24 May 2010 11:45:16 -0700

>update to RFC 3777 is proposed, reviewed, and approved.

According to Section 7.2 of RFC 3710:

   "The IESG is responsible for making sure the IETF process is
    functional in all aspects.  This includes taking responsibility for
    initiating consideration of updates to the process when required, as
    well as addressing obvious miscarriages of process, even when they do
    not fall into the categories described above."

That can be used as to explain that the IESG has the authority.

Section 5 of RFC 3777 mentions that:

   "All rules and special circumstances not otherwise specified are
    at the discretion of the committee."

As that can be read as giving both bodies some authority, it has to 
be determined which one is the authority.  According to Section 1.2 
of RFC 3710, the document does not claim to represent consensus of 
the IETF.  BCP 10 has the consensus of the IETF. It can only be 
overruled by a RFC that represents the consensus of the IETF.

Quoting an extract of the report of the arbiter in a RFC 3777 dispute 
resolution process:

   "RFC 3777 is the result of an IETF consensus process.  RFC 3777
    is the fourth RFC in a series of RFCs that defined the IAB and IESG
    selection, confirmation, and recall process used in the IETF.  Each new
    version was developed in an open IETF working group and represented the
    consensus of that working group, the IETF through last call and the
    IESG.  Thus RFC 3777 should be considered as the governing document for
    these processes within the IETF.  Self published documents by one or
    another group within the IETF cannot be used to modify the consensuses
    developed using IETF processes and recorded in RFC 3777."

The positions taken by the IAB Chair and the IETF Chair on the "day 
pass" is a matter of public record.  It is also clear where an appeal 
against this IESG Statement can be filed.

Eliot Lear mentioned [1] that:

   "I disagree with the IESG's statement, and I don't see even a
    rough consensus from my own view, but I do accept that they
    have the authority to make such a statement, if rough consensus
    could have been shown."

It is left to the reader of this message to see whether this 
statement can be rescinded by disputing the determination of rough 
consensus or through other means.

Regards,
-sm

1. http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf/current/msg61711.html