3777 drp 1

Arbiter Report: RFC 3777 Dispute Resolution Jan. 2008

Scott Bradner

sob@harvard.edu

12 March 2008

3777 drp 2

RFC 3777/BCP 10

• “IAB and IESG Selection, Confirmation, and Recall Process: Operation of the Nominating and Recall Committees.” RFC 3777/BCP 10, published June 2004

• obsoleted RFC 2727, published February 2000

• RFC 2727 updated to RFC 3777 by nomcom working group & IETF consensus process

3777 drp 3

RFC 3777 Dispute Resolution Process

• if a dispute arises during the nomcom process party seeking resolution informs ISOC President of the dispute

• ISOC President appoints arbiter to investigate dispute

• arbiter consults with parties, decides on a resolution & reports to parties & ISOC Prez.arbiter under nomcom confidentiality rulestwo week time limit

• arbiter decision final

3777 drp 4

2007-2008 Nomcom Dispute

• what information needs to be provided to IAB during confirmation processIAB requested candidates answers to nomcom

questionnaire (redacted of non-relevant info)

nomcom felt that RFC 3777 did not require or authorize providing that information & to do so would violate the candidates privacy expectations

3777 drp 5

Process

• received the request 4 Feb. 2008

• consultation with principal partiestalked with ISOC President

talked with most IAB & nomcom members

talked with IETF Chair

talked with past nomcom chairs

• reviewed RFC 3777 & RFC 2727

• delivered decision 10 Feb. 2008to IAB, nomcom & IETF Chairs and ISOC Prez.

3777 drp 6

Findings 1

1. RFC 3777 is governing documentIAB statement of wanted materials not override

2. RFC 3777 does not define role of confirming body

nomcom WG discussed but did not add text

3. RFC says nomcom provides “testimony” to confirming bodies

other info can be provided if nomcom “decides it is necessary”

details added in RFC 3777 thus reflect current consensus

3777 drp 7

Findings 2

4. RFC 3777 says confirming body can communicate with nomcom

I assume that includes asking for more info

5. RFC 3777 does not limit actions confirming body can take to get info the think they need

“all information and any means”

text added in RFC 3777

6. at least some candidates would have expected questionnaire would not be shared

3777 drp 8

Findings 3

7. precedent does not offer guidancepast nomcom chairs report that they provided

questionnaire results to the IAB

but they felt they needed to because of time pressure but did not think it was right

R. Droms noted the issue to the IETF & IAB

8. arbiter must answer the specific questioni.e., could not direct actions to be taken other than

providing or not providing the info

3777 drp 9

Decision

• the nomcom needs to provide redacted versions of the responses to “The Area” section of questionnaire plus testimony about anything the nomcom learned that would enhance the IAB’s understanding of the responses

• not a precedentthis decision should not be seen as a precedenta new nomcom WG should determine “right” list of

info to be provided

3777 drp 10

Rationale

• my strict reading of RFC 3777 agrees with the nomcom view

• but ‘better for IETF’ if IAB continues “in depth” review, at least for this go aroundIAB now more involved in IETF work than in past

• many IAB members mentioned need to understand candidates vision for areacandidates (I hope) would want to be open about

their vision

3777 drp 11

Rationale 2

• not reasonable (due to time & logistics) to ask each candidate if it was OK to share info

• a real (but justifiable) violation of confidentiality expectations

• some IAB members also wanted results of "Strengths and Weaknesses” section

• I feel that candidates could see this info as more private to nomcom

3777 drp 12

Suggestions

1. new nomcom WG badly neededclarify role of confirming body & what data should

be provided and what cannot

2. clearly set confidentiality expectations

3. “nomcom-only” section on questionnaires?

4. “all information and any means” text in RFC 3777 is far too broad