Hans Petter Holen
D R A F T - Version 1.1
Please take note of the IETF Copyright for part of this text as explained below.
The RIPE Chair selection process is described in ripe-yyy; that document calls for a RIPE Nominating Committee. This document describes the RIPE Nominating Committee, its creation, timeline, operation, dispute resolution as well as the recall of serving RIPE officials.
ripe-yyy can be considered the high-level description of the process to select the RIPE Chair and Vice Chair. This document describes the detailed procedures. Rather than inventing all new procedures, we re-use the proven procedures the IETF uses to select the members of the IAB. We rely on the experience of the IETF with its Nominating committee (NomCom) described in RFC7437, the current version of BCP10.
Specifically we re-used
from the IETF process to select the members of the IAB.
We copied the detailed procedures almost verbatim from the current version of BCP10. All text literally copied from BCP10 is indicated like this in the remainder of this document.
All text in this document describes RIPE procedures and exists independently of the IETF documents. The procedures described here will not follow changes the IETF might make in the future unless the RIPE community decides to update this document.
We used the following methods to adapt BCP10 to our purposes:
Unlike the IETF NomCom, the RIPE Nominating Committee is not instantiated every year but only as necessary.
We omitted some text specific to the IETF structure and process.
We removed all specifics of the roles that the committee selects people
to fill. These details will be covered in separate documents like ripe-yyy; we call these documents 'invoking documents'.
Based on community discussions we have applied the following mappings:
|IETF Community||RIPE Community|
|Internet Society Board of Trustees||RIPE NCC Executive Board|
|President of the Internet Society||RIPE NCC Executive Board Chair|
|IETF Secretariat||RIPE NCC|
|IETF Executive Director||RIPE Chair|
Note that at the time of writing the RIPE NCC Executive Board has not been formally asked to accept this role yet. This must happen once the RIPE community reaches consensus on the procedure described here.
We made the following changes throughout:
We described the basic rationale of this approach above: re-use a proven procedure for a similar application and avoid inventing new procedures as much as possible. This process has worked well for the IETF.
Both the level of detail and the number of words in these procedures are very different from what RIPE has been practicing up to now. This is due to the fact that the 'code' we are re-using has evolved over a considerable time based on experience.
This 'code' contains a lot of routines to handle abnormal situations, 'code' that is not expected to be executed very often, if at all. Like any good and well-tested production level 'code' this 'error handling' increases the total size considerably. The normal 'execution path' is described in ripe-yyy.
Also, the process to select the committee members is very detailed. Like the IETF, we consider it crucial that this selection is well specified and transparent, so that it can be observed and verified by the community.
We also strive to make this process very general. This allows for the RIPE Nominating Committee to select persons for other roles in the future. In other words: we intend this 'code' to be re-usable. Therefore, we keep the general language of BCP10 where we could use more specific language. For instance, we keep references to 'confirming bodies' even though we have only one specific confirming body defined today in ripe-yyy.
The majority of this document consists of text from RFC7437:
Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) M. Kucherawy, Ed. Request for Comments: 7437 January 2015 BCP: 10 Obsoletes: 3777, 5078, 5633, 5680, 6859 Category: Best Current Practice ISSN: 2070-1721
which bears the copyright notice:
Copyright (c) 2015 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the document authors. All rights reserved. This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal Provisions Relating to IETF Documents (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of publication of this document. Please review these documents carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as described in the Simplified BSD License.
The text re-used in this way is identified by using markdown 'emphasis' like this in the remainder of the document up to the Appendices. Usually this is rendered in an italic font.
The authors are in discussion with the IETF trust in order to obtain specific rights that allow us to publish and maintain this 'derived work' outside the IETF process. The trustees have agreed in principle to grant RIPE such rights.
The time frames specified here use RIPE Meetings as a frame of reference. The time frames assume that RIPE Meetings occur two times per calendar year with approximately equal amounts of time between them.
RIPE Meeting: A RIPE Meeting is a five-day event where Internet Service Providers (ISPs), network operators and other interested parties gather to discuss issues of interest to the Internet community. This document assumes that there are two RIPE Meetings each year.
Nominations RIPE Meeting: The RIPE Meeting during which calls are made both for nominations and for NomCom volunteers. This normally is two meetings before the transition RIPE Meeting.
Consultation RIPE Meeting: The RIPE Meeting during which the NomCom consults the community about the nominees. This normally is one meeting before the transition RIPE Meeting.
Transition RIPE Meeting: The RIPE Meeting during which the confirmed candidates take on their role.
Appendix T provides a summary of the overall time line.
The next section lists the words and phrases commonly used throughout this document with their intended meaning.
The majority of this document is divided into four major topics as follows:
General: This is a set of rules and constraints that apply to the selection and confirmation process as a whole.
Nominating Committee Selection: This is the process by which the volunteers who will serve on the committee are selected.
Nominating Committee Operation: This is the set of principles, rules, and constraints that guide the activities of the nominating committee, including the confirmation process.
Recall of Officials: This is the process by which the behaviour of a RIPE official may be questioned, perhaps resulting in the removal of the official.
The following words and phrases are commonly used throughout this document. They are listed here with their intended meaning for the convenience of the reader.
invoking RIPE Document: The RIPE Document that invokes this selection procedure. This RIPE Document describes one or more roles, their general qualifications, eligibility, term lengths and term limits as well as the confirming body.
position: A formal role RIPE as defined in an invoking RIPE Document. We are not very happy with some connotations of the word itself in the context of the RIPE tradition. We use this word because BCP10 uses it and this avoids a lot of small edits.
official: A person serving in a role. BCP10 uses 'member' which does not apply in the RIPE context and would cause confusion. We are not entirely happy with the word 'official' in the context of the RIPE tradition but so far have not been able to come up with a synonym that works better.
nominee: A person who is being or has been considered for one or more open positions.
candidate: A nominee who has been selected to be considered for confirmation by a confirming body.
confirming body: A well-defined person or group of persons that evaluates the process followed by the nominating committee and confirms the candidates selected. The confirming body for each role is defined in the respective invoking RIPE Document.
confirmed candidate: A candidate that has been reviewed and approved by a confirming body.
nominating committee term: The term begins when its members are officially announced, which is expected to be prior to the Consultation RIPE Meeting to ensure it is fully operational at the Consultation RIPE Meeting. The term ends when the committee makes its final report, which is expected to occur at the Transition RIPE Meeting.
The following set of rules apply to the process as a whole. If necessary, a paragraph discussing the interpretation of each rule is included.
The principal functions of the nominating committee are to review each open position and to nominate either its incumbent or a superior candidate.
Although there may be no term limit for serving in a specific role the nominating committee may use length of service as one of its criteria for evaluating an incumbent.
The nominating committee does not select the open positions to be reviewed; it is instructed as to which positions to review.
The nominating committee will be given the titles of the positions to be reviewed and a brief summary of the desired expertise of the candidate that is nominated to fill each position.
Incumbents must notify the nominating committee if they wish to be nominated.
The nominating committee does not confirm its candidates; it presents its candidates to the appropriate confirming body as indicated in the invoking RIPE Document.
A superior candidate is one who the nominating committee believes would contribute in such a way as to improve or enhance the body to which he or she is nominated.
All deliberations and supporting information that relates to specific nominees, candidates, and confirmed candidates are confidential.
The nominating committee and confirming body members will be exposed to confidential information as a result of their deliberations, their interactions with those they consult, and from those who provide requested supporting information. All members and all other participants are expected to handle this information in a manner consistent with its sensitivity.
It is consistent with this rule for current nominating committee members who have served on prior nominating committees to advise the current committee on deliberations and results of the prior committee, as necessary and appropriate.
The list of nominees willing to be considered for positions under review in the current nominating committee cycle is not confidential. The nominating committee may disclose a list of names of nominees who are willing to be considered for positions under review to the community, in order to obtain feedback from the community on these nominees.
The list of nominees disclosed for a specific position should contain only the names of nominees who are willing to be considered for the position under review.
The nominating committee may choose not to include some names in the disclosed list, at their discretion.
The nominating committee may disclose an updated list, at its discretion. For example, the nominating committee might disclose an updated list if it identifies errors/omissions in a previously disclosed version of the disclosed list, or if the nominating committee finds it necessary to call for additional nominees, and these nominees indicate a willingness to be considered before the nominating committee has completed its deliberations.
Nominees may choose to ask people to provide feedback to the nominating committee but should not encourage any public statements of support. Nominating committees should consider nominee-encouraged lobbying and campaigning to be unacceptable behavior.
RIPE community members are encouraged to provide feedback on nominees to the nominating committee but should not post statements of support/non-support for nominees in any public forum.
Unless otherwise specified, the advice and consent model is used throughout the process. This model is characterized as follows.
The RIPE Chair publicly informs the nominating committee of the positions to be reviewed.
The nominating committee uses the information in the invoking document to learn about the role and the capabilities and expertise desired of the candidates.
The nominating committee selects candidates based on its understanding of the RIPE community's consensus of the qualifications required and advises each confirming body of its respective candidates.
The confirming bodies review their respective candidates, they may at their discretion communicate with the nominating committee, and then consent to some, all, or none of the candidates.
The confirming bodies conduct their review using all information and any means acceptable to them, including but not limited to the supporting information provided by the nominating committee, information known personally to members of the confirming bodies and shared within the confirming body, the results of interactions within the confirming bodies, and the confirming bodies' interpretation of what is in the best interests of the RIPE community.
If all of the candidates are confirmed, the job of the nominating committee with respect to those open positions is complete.
If some or none of the candidates submitted to a confirming body are confirmed, the confirming body should 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.
The confirming body may reject individual candidates, in which case the nominating committee must select alternate candidates for the rejected candidates.
Any additional time required by the nominating committee should not exceed its maximum time allotment.
A confirming body decides whether it confirms each candidate using a confirmation decision rule chosen by the confirming body.
If a confirming body has no specific confirmation decision rule, then confirming a given candidate should require at least one-half of the confirming body's sitting members to agree to that confirmation.
The decision may be made by conducting a formal vote, by asserting consensus based on informal exchanges (e.g., email), or by any other mechanism that is used to conduct the normal business of the confirming body.
Regardless of which decision rule the confirming body uses, any candidate that is not confirmed under that rule is considered to be rejected.
The confirming body must make its decision within a reasonable time frame. The results from the confirming body must be reported promptly to the nominating committee.
All announcements must be made using at least the mechanism used by the RIPE NCC for its announcements, including a notice on the RIPE NCC website.
As of the publication of this document, the current mechanism is an email message to the 'firstname.lastname@example.org' mailing list.
The following set of rules apply to the creation of the nominating committee and the selection of its members.
The completion of the process of selecting and organizing the members of the nominating committee is due 60 days before the Consultation RIPE Meeting.
The term of a nominating committee ends when it delivers its final report. This is expected to occur at the Transition RIPE Meeting.
A nominating committee is expected to complete any work in progress before it is dissolved at the end of its term.
The nominating committee comprises at least a Chair, 10 voting volunteers, two liaisons, and an advisor.
Any committee member may propose the addition of an advisor to participate in some or all of the deliberations of the committee. The addition must be approved by the committee according to its established voting mechanism. Advisors participate as individuals.
Any committee member may propose the addition of a liaison from other unrepresented organizations to participate in some or all of the deliberations of the committee. The addition must be approved by the committee according to its established voting mechanism. Liaisons participate as representatives of their respective organizations.
The Chair is selected according to rules stated elsewhere in this document.
The 10 voting volunteers are selected according to rules stated elsewhere in this document.
A confirming body for a position under consideration by the nominating committee may appoint a liaison to the nominating committee at its own discretion.
The Chair of the previous nominating committee serves as an advisor according to rules stated elsewhere in this document.
The Chair, liaisons, and advisors do not vote on the selection of candidates. They do vote on all other issues before the committee unless otherwise specified in this document.
The Chair of the nominating committee is responsible for ensuring the nominating committee completes its assigned duties in a timely fashion and performs in the best interests of the RIPE community.
The Chair must be thoroughly familiar with the rules and guidance indicated throughout this document. The Chair must ensure the nominating committee completes its assigned duties in a manner that is consistent with this document.
The Chair must attest by proclamation at the Transition RIPE Meeting that the results of the committee represent its best effort and the best interests of the RIPE community.
The Chair does not vote on the selection of candidates.
The chair of the RIPE NCC Executive board appoints the Chair, who must meet the same requirements for membership in the nominating committee as a voting volunteer.
The nominating committee Chair must agree to invest the time necessary to ensure that the nominating committee completes its assigned duties and to perform in the best interests of the RIPE community in that role.
The appointment is due no later than 15 days prior to the Nominations RIPE Meeting to ensure it can be announced during a plenary session at that meeting.
A Chair, in consultation with the chair of the RIPE NCC Executive Board, may appoint a temporary substitute for the Chair position.
There are a variety of ordinary circumstances that may arise from time to time that could result in a Chair being unavailable to oversee the activities of the committee. The Chair, in consultation with the chair of the RIPE NCC Executive Board, may appoint a substitute from a pool comprised of the liaisons currently serving on the committee and the prior Chair or designee.
Any such appointment must be temporary and does not absolve the Chair of any or all responsibility for ensuring the nominating committee completes its assigned duties in a timely fashion.
Liaisons are responsible for ensuring the nominating committee in general and the Chair in particular execute their assigned duties in the best interests of the RIPE community.
Liaisons are expected to represent the views of their respective organizations during the deliberations of the committee. They should provide information as requested or when they believe it would be helpful to the committee.
Liaisons are expected to convey questions from the committee to their respective organizations and responses to those questions to the committee, as requested by the committee.
The liaison from the RIPE NCC Executive Board (if one was appointed) is expected to review the operation and executing process of the nominating committee and to report any concerns or issues to the Chair of the nominating committee immediately. If they cannot resolve the issue between themselves, liaisons must report it according to the dispute resolution process stated elsewhere in this document.
Liaisons from confirming bodies are expected to assist the committee in preparing the testimony it is required to provide with its candidates.
Liaisons may have other nominating committee responsibilities as required by their respective organizations or requested by the nominating committee, except that such responsibilities may not conflict with any other provisions of this document.
Liaisons do not vote on the selection of candidates.
An advisor is responsible for such duties as specified by the invitation that resulted in the appointment.
Advisors do not vote on the selection of candidates.
The Chair of the prior nominating committee serves as an advisor to the current committee.
The prior Chair is expected to review the actions and activities of the current Chair and to report any concerns or issues to the nominating committee Chair immediately. If they can not resolve the issue between themselves, the prior Chair must report it according to the dispute resolution process stated elsewhere in this document.
The prior Chair may select a designee from a pool composed of the voting volunteers of the prior committee and all prior Chairs if the Chair is unavailable. If the prior Chair is unavailable or is unable or unwilling to make such a designation in a timely fashion, the Chair of the current committee may select a designee in consultation with the chair of the RIPE NCC Executive Board.
Selecting a prior committee member as the designee permits the experience of the prior deliberations to be readily available to the current committee. Selecting an earlier prior Chair as the designee permits the experience of being a Chair as well as that Chair's committee deliberations to be readily available to the current committee.
All references to "prior Chair" in this document refer to the person serving in that role, whether it is the actual prior Chair or a designee.
Voting volunteers are responsible for completing the tasks of the nominating committee in a timely fashion.
Each voting volunteer is expected to participate in all activities of the nominating committee with a level of effort approximately equal to all other voting volunteers. Specific tasks to be completed are established and managed by the Chair according to rules stated elsewhere in this document.
The Chair must establish and announce milestones for the selection of the nominating committee members.
There is a defined time period during which the selection process is due to be completed. The Chair must establish a set of milestones which, if met in a timely fashion, will result in the completion of the process on time.
The Chair (or the RIPE Chair if no Chair has been named 15 days before the Nominations RIPE Meeting obtains the list of positions to be reviewed and announces it along with a solicitation for names of volunteers from the RIPE community willing to serve on the nominating committee.
If the RIPE Chair issues the solicitation for volunteers, the RIPE Chair must also collect responses to the solicitation and provide the names of volunteers to the nominating committee Chair when the nominating committee Chair is named.
At the Chair's request, the RIPE NCC may perform other clerical support tasks, as long as the task being performed does not require nominating committee Chair judgment, in the nominating committee Chair's opinion, and as long as the community is appropriately notified that this request is being made. This request may come from the incoming nominating committee Chair (if one has been selected for this nominating committee cycle) or the previous nominating committee Chair (if the search for an incoming nominating committee Chair is still underway).
The solicitation must permit the community at least 30 days during which they may choose to volunteer to be selected for the nominating committee.
The list of open positions is published with the solicitation to facilitate community members choosing between volunteering for an open position and volunteering for the nominating committee.
Members of the RIPE community must have attended at least three of the last five RIPE Meetings in order to volunteer.
The five meetings are the five most recent meetings including the Nominations RIPE Meeting.
For empirical data supporting the feasibility of these qualifications at the time of this writing see appendix M.
The RIPE NCC is responsible for confirming that volunteers have met the attendance requirement.
Volunteers must provide their full name, email address, and primary company or organization affiliation (if any) when volunteering.
Volunteers are expected to be familiar with the RIPE processes and procedures, which are readily learned by active participation in a working group and especially by serving as a document editor or working group chair.
Any person who serves on the RIPE NCC Executive Board, or a confirming body for a position to be selected by the committee may not volunteer to serve as voting members of the nominating committee. Liaisons to these bodies from other bodies or organizations are not excluded by this rule.
The Chair announces both the list of the pool of volunteers from which the 10 voting volunteers will be randomly selected and the method with which the selection will be completed.
The announcement should be made at least seven days prior to the date on which the random selection will occur.
The pool of volunteers must be enumerated or otherwise indicated according to the needs of the selection method to be used.
The announcement must specify the data that will be used as input to the selection method. The method must depend on random data whose value is not known or available until the date on which the random selection will occur.
It must be possible to independently verify that the selection method used is both fair and unbiased. A method is fair if each eligible volunteer is equally likely to be selected. A method is unbiased if no one can influence its outcome in favour of a specific outcome.
It must be possible to repeat the selection method, either through iteration or by restarting in such a way as to remain fair and unbiased. This is necessary to replace selected volunteers should they become unavailable after selection.
The selection method must produce an ordered list of volunteers.
One possible selection method is described in [RFC3797].
The Chair randomly selects the 10 voting volunteers from the pool of names of volunteers and announces the members of the nominating committee.
No more than two volunteers with the same primary affiliation may be selected for the nominating committee. The Chair reviews the primary affiliation of each volunteer selected by the method in turn. If the primary affiliation for a volunteer is the same as two previously selected volunteers, that volunteer is removed from consideration and the method is repeated to identify the next eligible volunteer.
There must be at least two announcements of all members of the nominating committee.
The first announcement should occur as soon after the random selection as is reasonable for the Chair. The community must have at least seven days during which any member may challenge the results of the random selection.
The challenge must be made in writing (email is acceptable) to the Chair. The Chair has 48 hours to review the challenge and offer a resolution to the member. If the resolution is not accepted by the member, that member may report the challenge according to the dispute resolution process stated elsewhere in this document.
If a selected volunteer, upon reading the announcement with the list of selected volunteers, finds that two or more other volunteers have the same affiliation, then the volunteer should notify the Chair who will determine the appropriate action.
During at least the seven day challenge period, the Chair must contact each of the members and confirm their willingness and availability to serve. The Chair should make every reasonable effort to contact each member.
If the Chair is unable to contact a liaison, the problem is referred to the respective organization to resolve. The Chair should allow a reasonable amount of time for the organization to resolve the problem and then may proceed without the liaison.
If the Chair is unable to contact an advisor, the Chair may elect to proceed without the advisor, except for the prior year's Chair for whom the Chair must consult with the chair of the RIPE NCC Executive Board as stated elsewhere in this document.
If the Chair is unable to contact a voting volunteer, the Chair must repeat the random selection process in order to replace the unavailable volunteer. There should be at least one day between the announcement of the iteration and the selection process.
After at least one week and confirming that 10 voting volunteers are ready to serve, the Chair makes the second announcement of the members of the nominating committee, which officially begins the term of the nominating committee.
The Chair works with the members of the committee to organize itself in preparation for completing its assigned duties.
The committee has approximately 30 days during which it can self-organize. Its responsibilities during this time include but are not limited to the following:
Setting up a regular teleconference schedule.
Setting up an internal website.
Setting up a mailing list for internal discussions.
Setting up an email address for receiving community input.
Establishing operational procedures.
Establishing milestones in order to monitor the progress of the selection process.
The following rules apply to the operation of the nominating committee. If necessary, a paragraph discussing the interpretation of each rule is included.
The rules are organized approximately in the order in which they would be invoked.
All rules and special circumstances not otherwise specified are at the discretion of the committee.
Exceptional circumstances will occasionally arise during the normal operation of the nominating committee. This rule is intended to foster the continued forward progress of the committee.
Any member of the committee may propose a rule for adoption by the committee. The rule must be approved by the committee according to its established voting mechanism.
All members of the committee should consider whether the exception is worthy of mention in the next revision of this document and follow-up accordingly.
The completion of the process of selecting candidates to be confirmed by their respective confirming body is due within 90 days.
The completion of the process of selecting candidates to be confirmed by their respective confirming body is due 90 days prior to the Transition RIPE Meeting. This ensures the nominating committee has sufficient time to complete the confirmation process.
The completion of the process of confirming the candidates is due within 30 days.
The completion of the confirmation process is due at least 15 days prior to the Transition RIPE Meeting.
The Chair must establish a set of nominating committee milestones for the candidate selection and confirmation process.
There is a defined time period during which the candidate selection and confirmation process must be completed. The Chair must establish a set of milestones that, if met in a timely fashion, will result in the completion of the process on time. The Chair should allow time for iterating the activities of the committee if one or more candidates are not confirmed.
The Chair should ensure that all committee members are aware of the milestones.
The Chair must establish a voting mechanism.
The committee must be able to objectively determine when a decision has been made during its deliberations. The criteria for determining closure must be established and known to all members of the nominating committee.
At least a quorum of committee members must participate in a vote.
Only voting volunteers vote on a candidate selection. For a candidate selection vote, a quorum is comprised of at least seven of the voting volunteers.
At all other times, a quorum is present if at least 75% of the nominating committee members are participating.
Any member of the nominating committee may propose to the committee that any other member except the Chair be recalled. The process for recalling the Chair is defined elsewhere in this document.
There are a variety of ordinary circumstances that may arise that could result in one or more members of the committee being unavailable to complete their assigned duties, for example, health concerns, family issues, or a change of priorities at work. A committee member may choose to resign for unspecified personal reasons. In addition, the committee may not function well as a group because a member may be disruptive or otherwise uncooperative.
Regardless of the circumstances, if individual committee members can
not work out their differences between themselves, the entire
committee may be called upon to discuss and review the circumstances.
If a resolution is not forthcoming, a vote may be conducted.
A member may be recalled if at least a quorum of all committee members agree, including the vote of the member being recalled.
If a liaison member is recalled, the committee must notify the affected organization and must allow a reasonable amount of time for a replacement to be identified by the organization before proceeding.
If an advisor member other than the prior Chair is recalled, the committee may choose to proceed without the advisor. In the case of the prior Chair, the chair of the RIPE NCC Executive Board must be notified and the current Chair must be allowed a reasonable amount of time to consult with the chair of the RIPE NCC Executive Board to identify a replacement before proceeding.
If a single voting volunteer position on the nominating committee is vacated, regardless of the circumstances, the committee may choose to proceed with only nine voting volunteers at its own discretion. In all other cases, a new voting member must be selected, and the Chair must repeat the random selection process including an announcement of the iteration prior to the actual selection as stated elsewhere in this document.
A change in the primary affiliation of a voting volunteer during the term of the nominating committee is not a cause to request the recall of that volunteer, even if the change would result in more than two voting volunteers with the same affiliation.
Only the prior Chair may request the recall of the current Chair.
It is the responsibility of the prior Chair to ensure the current Chair completes the assigned tasks in a manner consistent with this document and in the best interests of the RIPE community.
Any member of the committee who has an issue or concern regarding the Chair should report it to the prior Chair immediately. The prior Chair is expected to report it to the Chair immediately. If they can not resolve the issue between themselves, the prior year's Chair must report it according to the dispute resolution process stated elsewhere in this document.
All members of the nominating committee may participate in all deliberations.
The emphasis of this rule is that no member can be explicitly excluded from any deliberation. However, a member may individually choose not to participate in a deliberation.
The Chair announces the open positions to be reviewed, the desired expertise, and the call for nominees.
The call for nominees must include a request for comments regarding the past performance of incumbents, which will be considered during the deliberations of the nominating committee.
The call must request that a nomination include a valid, working email address, a telephone number, or both for the nominee. The nomination must include the set of skills or expertise the nominator believes the nominee has that would be desirable.
Any member of the RIPE community may nominate any member of the RIPE community for any open position, whose eligibility to serve will be confirmed by the nominating committee.
A self-nomination is permitted.
Nominating committee members are not eligible to be considered for filling any open position by the nominating committee on which they serve. They become ineligible as soon as the term of the nominating committee on which they serve officially begins. They remain ineligible for the duration of that nominating committee's term.
RIPE officials who were recalled during the previous two years are not eligible to be considered for filling any open position.
The nominating committee selects candidates based on its understanding of the RIPE community's consensus of the qualifications required to fill the open positions.
The intent of this rule is to ensure that the nominating committee consults with a broad base of the RIPE community for input to its deliberations. In particular, the nominating committee must determine if the desired expertise for the open positions matches its understanding of the qualifications desired by the RIPE community.
The consultations are permitted to include names of nominees, if all parties to the consultation agree to observe the same confidentiality rules as the nominating committee itself, or the names are public as discussed above. Feedback on individual nominees should always be confidential.
A broad base of the community should include serving officials especially officials who share responsibilities with open positions.
Only voting volunteer members vote to select candidates.
Nominees should be advised that they are being considered and must consent to their nomination prior to being chosen as candidates.
Although the nominating committee will make every reasonable effort to contact and to remain in contact with nominees, any nominee whose contact information changes during the process and who wishes to still be considered should inform the nominating committee of the changes.
A nominee's consent must be written (email is acceptable) and must include a commitment to provide the resources necessary to fill the open position and an assurance that the nominee will perform the duties of the position for which they are being considered in the best interests of the RIPE community.
Consenting to a nomination must occur prior to a nominee being a candidate and may occur as soon after the nomination as needed by the nominating committee.
Consenting to a nomination must not imply the nominee will be a candidate.
The nominating committee should help nominees provide justification to their employers.
The nominating committee advises the confirming bodies of their candidates, specifying a single candidate for each open position and testifying as to how each candidate meets the qualifications of an open position.
For each candidate, the testimony must include a brief statement of the qualifications for the position that is being filled, which may be exactly the expertise that was requested. If the qualifications differ from the expertise originally requested, a brief statement explaining the difference must be included.
The testimony may include a brief resume of the candidate and/or a brief summary of the deliberations of the nominating committee.
Confirmed candidates must consent to their confirmation, and rejected candidates and nominees must be notified before confirmed candidates are announced.
It is not necessary to notify and get consent from all confirmed candidates together.
A nominee may not know they were a candidate. This permits a candidate to be rejected by a confirming body without the nominee knowing about the rejection.
Rejected nominees, who consented to their nomination, and rejected candidates must be notified prior to announcing the confirmed candidates.
It is not necessary to announce all confirmed candidates together.
The nominating committee must ensure that all confirmed candidates are prepared to serve prior to announcing their confirmation.
The dispute resolution process described here is to be used as indicated elsewhere in this document. Its applicability in other circumstances is beyond the scope of this document.
The nominating committee operates under a strict rule of confidentiality. For this reason, when process issues arise, it is best to make every reasonable effort to resolve them within the committee. However, when circumstances do not permit this or no resolution is forthcoming, the process described here is to be used.
The following rules apply to the process.
The results of this process are final and binding. There is no appeal.
The process begins with the submission of a request as described below to the chair of the RIPE NCC Executive Board.
As soon as the process begins, the nominating committee may continue those activities that are unrelated to the issue to be resolved except that it must not submit any candidates to a confirming body until the issue is resolved.
All parties to the process are subject to the same confidentiality rules as each member of the nominating committee.
The process should be completed within two weeks.
The process is as follows:
The party seeking resolution submits a written request (email is acceptable) to the chair of the RIPE NCC Executive Board detailing the issue to be resolved.
The chair of the RIPE NCC Executive Board appoints an arbiter to investigate and resolve the issue. A self-appointment is permitted.
The arbiter investigates the issue making every reasonable effort to understand both sides of the issue. Since the arbiter is subject to the same confidentiality obligations as all nominating committee members, all members are expected to cooperate fully with the arbiter and to provide all relevant information to the arbiter for review.
After consultation with the two principal parties to the issue, the arbiter decides on a resolution. Whatever actions are necessary to execute the resolution are immediately begun and completed as quickly as possible.
The arbiter summarizes the issue, the resolution, and the rationale for the resolution for the chair of the RIPE NCC Executive Board.
In consultation with the chair of the RIPE NCC Executive Board, the arbiter prepares a report of the dispute and its resolution. The report should include all information that in the judgment of the arbiter does not violate the confidentiality requirements of the nominating committee.
The Chair includes the dispute report when reporting on the activities of the nominating committee to the IETF community.
The following rules apply to the recall process. If necessary, a paragraph discussing the interpretation of each rule is included.
At any time, at least 20 members of the RIPE community, who are qualified to be voting members of a nominating committee, may request by signed petition (email is acceptable) to the chair of the RIPE NCC Executive Board the recall of any official serving in a role described in an invoking document.
All individual and collective qualifications of nominating committee eligibility are applicable, including that no more than two signatories may have the same primary affiliation.
Each signature must include a full name, email address, and primary company or organization affiliation.
The RIPE NCC is responsible for confirming that each signatory is qualified to be a voting member of a nominating committee. A valid petition must be signed by at least 20 qualified signatories.
The petition must include a statement of justification for the recall and all relevant and appropriate supporting documentation.
The petition and its signatories must be announced to the RIPE community.
The chair of the RIPE NCC Executive Board shall appoint a Recall Committee Chair.
The chair of the RIPE NCC Executive Board must not evaluate the recall request. It is explicitly the responsibility of the RIPE community to evaluate the behavior of its officials.
The recall committee is created according to the same rules as is the nominating committee with the qualifications that both the person being investigated and the parties requesting the recall must not be a member of the recall committee in any capacity.
The recall committee operates according to the same rules as the nominating committee with the qualification that there is no confirmation process.
The recall committee investigates the circumstances of the justification for the recall and votes on its findings.
The investigation must include at least both an opportunity for the official being recalled to present a written statement and consultation with third parties.
A 3/4 majority of the members who vote on the question is required for a recall.
This is a guideline that explicitly allows ad hoc deviations both for pragmatic reasons and in unforeseen circumstances without having to change this document each time. Any such deviations and the appropriate community consensus should be clearly documented each time.
Any selection, confirmation, or recall process necessarily involves investigation into the qualifications and activities of prospective candidates. The investigation may reveal confidential or otherwise private information about candidates to those participating in the process. Each person who participates in any aspect of the process must maintain the confidentiality of any and all information not explicitly identified as suitable for public dissemination.
When the nominating committee decides it is necessary to share confidential or otherwise private information with others, the dissemination must be minimal and must include a prior commitment from all persons consulted to observe the same confidentiality rules as the nominating committee itself.
%%% to be completed %%%
%%% RIPE ToR? %%%
[RFC3797] Eastlake, D., "Publicly Verifiable Nominations Committee (NomCom) Random Selection", RFC 3797, June 2004, http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3797.
[RFC7437] "IAB, IESG, and IAOC Selection, Confirmation, and Recall Process: Operation of the Nominating and Recall Committees", RFC7437, January 2015, http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7437.
The authors thank the IETF and all those who worked to document the IETF procedures this document is based on. We acknowledge using a significant amount of text from BCP10 with only the absolutely necessary adaption to our purpose. Antony Gollan checked our orthography and improved our style but was not allowed to touch any text from BCP10.
%%% to be completed %%%
Hans Petter Holen is a RIPE participant since RIPE 22 and the present chairman of RIPE. Rob Blokzijl asked him to ensure that the community establishes the procedure described here.
Mirjam Kühne is a RIPE participant since RIPE 19 and a member of the RIPE NCC staff. She took on the task of supporting the community and Hans Petter in this effort.
Daniel Karrenberg is one of the RIPE founders and a member of the RIPE NCC staff. He took on the job of editing this document and writing the bulk of the text.
Anna Wilson is a RIPE participant since RIPE 31. She has led several fairly intense community discussions about this procedure.
%%% to-be-done %%%
ripe-yyy had been drafted and discussed first. See that document and its appendix G for a description of that process.
When it subsequently became clear that the IETF NomCom method was to be seriously considered, Daniel Karrenberg produced a first adaption of BCP10. The authors discussed this extensively and agreed to make only the minimal set of changes necessary to adapt BCP10 for RIPE. After further reflection we decided to make this procedure as general as possible by moving all specifics about the roles themselves to 'invoking documents' like ripe-yyy.
%%% to be completed after community discussion %%%
The IETF uses attendance of three of the five previous meetings as eligibility criterion for NomCom volunteers. Also note that the IETF currently meets three times per year compared to our two.
In order to come up with a reasonable criterion for RIPE, we have studied meeting attendance since RIPE 63 based on the published attendee lists. The columns of the table below show for a specific RIPE Meeting approximately how many people have attended n out of the m meetings including the current one. In other words the number 78 in the RIPE 68 column at row '5 of 5' means that 78 names on the RIPE68 attendee list also appeared on the lists of the four previous meetings. The last row of the table, labeled '1 of 1' gives the number of names on the list of that meeting.
Attended, RIPE68, RIPE69, RIPE70, RIPE71, RIPE72, RIPE73, RIPE74, RIPE75, RIPE76, RIPE77 5 of 5, 78, 83, 103, 96, 99, 113, 119, 89, 101, 100 4 of 5, 153, 175, 203, 194, 209, 202, 214, 192, 213, 207 3 of 5, 278, 306, 335, 308, 337, 352, 371, 329, 361, 354 2 of 5, 504, 540, 585, 595, 645, 639, 641, 593, 631, 664 1 of 5, 1500, 1576, 1668, 1657, 1763, 1806, 1794, 1743, 1886, 2005 4 of 4, 105, 118, 125, 120, 135, 140, 138, 113, 117, 119 3 of 4, 218, 253, 253, 249, 262, 262, 279, 258, 266, 258 2 of 4, 443, 466, 500, 515, 542, 537, 529, 505, 510, 557 1 of 4, 1306, 1379, 1446, 1497, 1545, 1564, 1515, 1545, 1627, 1768 3 of 3, 156, 151, 166, 169, 169, 170, 196, 135, 147, 142 2 of 3, 360, 353, 416, 385, 414, 384, 432, 367, 381, 408 1 of 3, 1092, 1142, 1273, 1258, 1292, 1271, 1308, 1247, 1364, 1516 2 of 2, 219, 223, 273, 236, 229, 271, 269, 185, 200, 312 1 of 2, 819, 954, 1013, 967, 968, 1029, 995, 936, 1056, 1269 1 of 1, 569, 608, 674, 525, 672, 628, 636, 485, 771, 810
The numbers are approximate because they are based on heuristical parsing of a number of attendee list formats and an equally heuristical guess on equivalent names with different spellings. It should also be noted that there are typically 40-50 RIPE NCC staff registered for the meetings we studied.
The '3 of 5' row consistently shows 300+ for recent meetings. Assuming that at least 10% will volunteer we will have sufficient volunteers.
Based on Shane Kerr's work: https://github.com/shane-kerr/ripemtggender
Code published here: https://github.com/dfkbg/ripemeeting-n-of-m
This appendix suggests formats for some of the reports and other communications mentioned or required. All names and material content are fictitious.
%%% to-be-done %%%
This appendix is included for the convenience of the reader and is not to be interpreted as the definitive timeline. It is intended to capture the detail described elsewhere in this document in one place. Although every effort has been made to ensure the description here is consistent with the description elsewhere, if there are any conflicts the definitive rule is the one in the main body of this document.
The time line includes a "nominal month" based on the assumption the transition RIPE Meeting will take place in May of year two.
|Event||Time / Deadline||Nominal Month|
|NomCom chair appointed||15 days before nomination RIPE Meeting||April / 1|
|Nominations RIPE Meeting||two meetings before transition RIPE Meeting||May / 1|
|Call for nominations||during nomination RIPE Meeting||May / 1|
|Call for NomCom volunteers||during nomination RIPE Meeting||May / 1|
|NomCom volunteers announced||30 days after call for volunteers||June / 1|
|NomCom announced||45 days after call for volunteers||July / 1|
|Nominations close||60 days after call for nominations||August / 1|
|NomCom organised||60 days before consultation RIPE Meeting||August / 1|
|Nominees announced||15 days before consultation RIPE Meeting||Sept / 1|
|Consultation RIPE Meeting||one meeting before transition RIPE Meeting||Oct / 1|
|NomCom makes selection||90 days before transition RIPE Meeting||Feb / 2|
|Selection Confirmed||30 days after NomCom makes selection||March / 2|
|Selection Announced||15 days before transition RIPE Meeting||March / 2|
|Transition RIPE Meeting||May / 2|
|NomCom Report||during transition RIPE Meeting||May / 2|
|Transition||during transition RIPE Meeting||May / 2|