As per Relevance of the word selection, we have this rfc below:
Network Working Group S.
Request for Comments: 1396 Trusted Information Systems, Inc
January 1993
The Process for Organization of Internet
Working Group (POISED
Steve Crocker,
Status of this
This memo provides information for the Internet community. It
not specify an Internet standard. Distribution of this memo
unlimited
This report provides a summary of the POISED Working Group (WG),
starting from the events leading to the formation of the WG to
end of 1992. Necessarily, this synopsis represents my
perception, particularly for the "prehistory" period. Quite a
people hold strong views about both the overall sequence and
events. My intent here is to convey as neutral a point of view
possible
Background and Formation of POISED Working
The POISED WG resulted from two sequences of activity,
intimately related to the growth of the Internet. During 1991,
was great concern that the IP address space was being depleted
that the routing tables were growing too large. Some change in
IP addressing and routing mechanisms seemed inevitable, and it
urgent to explore and choose what those changes should be. The
Working Group was formed to study the issues and recommend changes
The ROAD group returned with a specific recommendation for the
term, but did not reach a conclusion on a long term plan
The Internet Engineering Steering Group (IESG) then formulated a
of action for further exploration of the issues and forwarded
recommendations to the Internet Architecture Board (IAB). In
1992, after the INET '92 meeting in Kobe, Japan, the IAB met
considered the IESG's recommendations. After considering the IESG'
recommendations, the IAB felt that additional ideas were
important, particularly some of the addressing ideas in the
protocol. The IAB communicated its concerns, and there was
controversy along two dimensions. One dimension was technical:
is the best course for evolving the IP protocol? How important
useful are the ideas in the OSI protocol stack? The other
Crocker [Page 1]
RFC 1396 Poised Report January 1993
was political: Who makes decisions within the Internet community
Who chooses who makes these decisions
As often happens during periods of conflict, communication
among the several parties. The June communication from the IAB
understood by many an IAB decision or, equivalently, a sense of
decisions the IAB would make in the future. In contrast, many if
all on the IAB felt that they were trying to open up the
and their memos were intended as advice and not decisions. From
perspective, this form of miscommunication was partly due to
extended size of the Internet technical community. When
community was much smaller, the IAB was in close contact with the
to day workings of the technical groups. With the creation of
IESG and area directorates, there are now two or three layers
a working group and the IAB
These matters came to a head during the Internet Engineering
Force (IETF) meeting in July in Cambridge, MA. It was made
that the consideration of changes to the IP protocol remained open
Work on that topic has proceeded and is reported in the
forums. However, it became clear that it was necessary to
the decision process and the procedures for populating the IESG
IAB. With respect to the procedures for selecting IAB and
members, the procedures that were in place derived from the
of the Internet Society (ISOC) and the ISOC's sponsorship of the IAB
These procedures had been developed during the early part of 1992
had been adopted by the ISOC during its meeting in Kobe in June
Hence, as fast as the ISOC was building the framework for
the Internet community, the community was questioning its
and processes
Following the IETF meeting, Vint Cerf, Internet Society president
called for the formation of working group to examine the
and particularly the selection process (Attachment 1).
August, the working group was formed, I was asked to chair it, and
charter for the WG was formulated (Attachment 2). (The acronym
due to Erik Huizer and originally stood for The Process
Organization of Internet Standards and Development. It was
to fit into the space available on paper and in the
Secretariat's database.)
Deliberations: August through mid-
The formation of the POISED WG provided a forum for discussion
process issues. An estimated 20 MB of messages filled up disks
over the world. Much of this discussion was fragmented or focused
narrow issues. The salient point that emerged was the need for
well defined process for selecting leaders with explicit
Crocker [Page 2]
RFC 1396 Poised Report January 1993
representation in the selection process. There was also
discussion of the role of the IAB -- to what extent should it
decisions and to what extent should it provide technical guidance? --
and the relationship between the IAB and IESG
After several weeks of discussion, Carl Malamud and I attempted
capture the main elements of the discussion by presenting a
proposal for the reorganization of the entire structure. The
elements of the proposal were
o Retention of the WG and area structure now in place within
IETF
o Replacement of the IAB and IESG by two boards, one devoted
technical management and one devoted to oversight of
process
o Well defined terms for members of both boards
o Selection by committees with input from the community
This proposal was technically radical in the sense that it
new structures to replace existing structures instead of
changes within the existing system. The proposal focused all
discussion and set the stage for the fall IETF in mid-November
Washington D.C
November IETF
By virtue of the intensity of interest throughout the community,
POISED WG was one of the focal points of the IETF meeting.
schedule included a plenary session Tuesday morning to present
current state of the POISED WG discussions, a formal POISED
session Tuesday afternoon and an open IESG meeting Thursday
devoted to the POISED issues. The formal schedule was only the
of the iceberg; numerous meetings took place over breakfast,
and dinner, in the halls and off in the corners. The more
participants probably had a dozen or more separate meetings on
over the three most active days, Tuesday, Wednesday and Thursday
Amidst all this frenetic activity, remarkable progress occurred
two key points. At the Tuesday afternoon POISED WG meeting,
Chapin, IAB chair, Phill Gross, IETF chair and IAB member, and
IAB members proposed changes within the existing IAB/IESG
which converged with the process management elements of the Malamud
Crocker proposal. The key point was that all processing of
actions, including the final decision to advance a
along the standards track, would be made by the IESG. This change
Crocker [Page 3]
RFC 1396 Poised Report January 1993
the process shortens the decision cycle and brings it a step
to the working group. Convergence on this key point obviated
radical proposal and signaled the building of a consensus on how
standards process should evolve. Over the next two days
then turned to the selection process
As indicated above, there was a strong feeling in the community
the IAB and IESG members should be selected with the consensus of
community. A natural mechanism for doing this is through
voting. However, a formal voting process requires formal
of who's enfranchised. One of the strengths of the IETF is
isn't any formal membership requirement, nor is there a tradition
decision through votes. Decisions are generally reached
consensus with mediation by leaders when necessary
Various formulas were considered, and the one that emerged was
IAB and IESG members would be selected by a nomination and
committee. The committee is to consist of seven members from
community, with non-voting representatives from the IAB and IESG
a non-voting chair provided by the ISOC. The seven members are to
volunteers, with selection by lot if there are more than
volunteers. The only requirement for volunteers is they must
attended two IETF meetings. This requirement is designed to
the nomination committee has some familiarity with the
community and the standards process
IAB and IESG members are to serve two years. Half of each body is
have terms starting in odd years, and half is to have terms
in even years. Selections to the IESG have to be ratified by
IAB, and selections to the IAB had to be ratified by the ISOC.
the event that the nomination committee is unable to reach
consensus on a single candidate for each position, it may
multiple nominations to the ratifying body, and the ratifying
will select the candidate
In addition to this selection process, a recall mechanism
outlined using a similar scheme. The ISOC is to supply an
who will field complaints after all oversight processes have
exhausted. If the ombudsman is unable to resolve a complaint after
cooling off period, a recall committee, selected at random
volunteering community members, will consider the matter. A
thirds vote by the committee is necessary to remove someone
This proposal was formulated and circulated during Wednesday
Thursday and presented at the IESG open plenary. In contrast to
extraordinarily contentious open IESG meeting in Cambridge,
meeting was characterized by a strenuous effort by numerous people
representing diverse points of view, to reach consensus on
Crocker [Page 4]
RFC 1396 Poised Report January 1993
proposal, and the meeting ended with a distinct decision to
on this basis. Given the strong consensus that emerged at
meeting, the group decided to implement the selection process by
next IETF meeting, with the new IESG and IAB members to begin
terms at the termination of the IETF meeting in March
On Friday, the IAB and IESG met jointly to determine what to do next
Both groups agreed to implement the change in processing
actions quickly and cooperatively and to identify the positions
are open for selection. Within a couple of weeks, the IAB
processing the standards actions in its queue, and IESG began
handle standards actions on its own
December ISOC
The Internet Society Trustees met December 10 and 11 at CNRI
Reston, VA. The process and organization of the IAB and IETF was
of their major concerns. A session of the Trustees at 3:00 p.m. EST
December 10, was broadcast via the Internet. It was not clear
many people listened, but Geoff Huston, Internet Trustee, was
in separately from Australia
At this session, I presented the POISED WG results deliberations
asked on behalf of the IETF that the Trustees approve the
process described above. For the long run, a new charter is needed
Given the very compressed schedule for these activities, there
not been time to draft and refine a new charter, so the Trustees
asked to approve the general direction of the reorganization of
IAB and IETF and give temporary approval to the selection process
order to permit the first round of selections to proceed
The Trustees expressed strong approval for the work of the POISED
and general approval for the direction of the effort. One area
concern for the Trustees is the legal liability of the
Society regarding decisions the IESG might make in the future.
Trustees made it quite clear that they are not inclined
micromanage the IETF process, but they do feel compelled
understand the legal issues and help construct a charter which
consistent with their responsibilities as Trustees
The session adjourned with agreement to proceed on the current
and for the IETF, IAB and ISOC Trustees to work together to draft
appropriate charter
Crocker [Page 5]
RFC 1396 Poised Report January 1993
Future
Both the IESG and IAB have selected the positions which must
filled through the new selection process. As I write this, Vint
has been working to find a chair for the nominations committee,
the process should move forward during January and February
Communications on the details of the nomination process will
published on the IETF mailing list and possibly other forums.
described above, the selection process should be complete well
the next IETF meeting, and preferably by the end of February
The other open agenda item is the draft of a new charter for the
and IETF and adoption of the charter by the ISOC. This is the
order of business for the POISED WG
ATTACHMENT 1: Message from Vint Cerf to the IETF, et al
To: pgross@nis.ans.
Cc: iab@isi.edu, iesg@NRI.Reston.VA.US, ietf@isi.edu
internet-society-trustees:;@IETF.NRI.Reston.VA.US
internet-society-members:;@IETF.NRI.Reston.VA.US
isoc-interest@relay.sgi.
Subject: Request for
Date: Wed, 12 Aug 92 21:46:48 -0400
From: vcerf@NRI.Reston.VA.
Message-Id: <9208122146.aa10744@IETF.NRI.Reston.VA.US
To: IETF
CC: IAB, IETF, IRTF, ISOC Trustees, and ISOC
From: President, Internet
Subject: Request for Recommendations on IAB/IETF/IRTF/ISOC
In June, 1992, The Internet Society Board of Trustees received
proposed charter for an Internet Architecture Board to be
within the Internet Society. The new Internet Architecture Board
envisioned to be made up of the then current members of the
Activities Board. The functions of the IETF and the IRTF would
brought under the umbrella of the Internet Society as elements of
newly chartered Internet Architecture Board. The Trustees voted
accept the proposed charter, which is contained in RFC 1358.
In the period between June and July, a great deal of
occurred both by email and at the IETF meeting in Boston about
Crocker [Page 6]
RFC 1396 Poised Report January 1993
procedures by which the IAB, IETF, and IRTF should work
under the general umbrella of the Internet Society. Among the
points raised, three seemed particularly important to consider
1. Procedures for making appointments to the Internet
Board
2. Procedures for resolving disagreements among the IETF, IESG
and IAB in matters pertaining to the Internet Standards
3. Methods for ensuring that for any particular Internet Standard
procedures have been followed satisfactorily by all
so that everyone with an interest has had a fair
to be heard
Effective discussion of these issues requires the availability of
open venue, an opportunity to comment by email, and the
of conducting face-to-face meetings. Recognizing this, the IAB
recommended that the most effective means available to the
Community for gathering recommendations for refining our
procedures is to request that an IETF Working Group be formed
I am pleased to make this request of the IETF to create such a WG
It would be extremely helpful to have recommendations on the
topics listed above by the first of December, 1992, in time to
presented at the Internet Society Board of Trustees meeting
for December 10th
With respect to point 1 above, the current procedures for making
appointments are contained in the IAB charter (RFC 1358). RFC 1310
contains a description of the current process by which
Standards are achieved. Points (2) and (3) could be discussed in
context of the present procedures described in RFC 1310,
recognizes a number of open issues in an appendix
The Internet Society Trustees hope that members of the IAB, IRTF
IESG, and IETF, as well as general members of the Internet Society
will take the time to share their thoughts in the proposed
group forum. It is vital to the future of the Internet that these
groups work together well. Certainly, the Internet Society
are committed to doing everything possible to facilitate
procedures and to preserve and enhance the special spirit of
Internet Community which has created and maintains the health
growth of the global Internet
Vint
Internet
Crocker [Page 7]
RFC 1396 Poised Report January 1993
Process for Organization of Internet Standards (poised
Chair(s):
Steve Crocker
Mailing lists
General Discussion:poised@nri.reston.va.
To Subscribe: poised-request@nri.reston.va.
Archive: nri.reston.va.us:~/poised/
Description of Working Group
The goal of this working group is to examine the
standards process and the responsibilities of the IAB,
attention to the relationship between the IAB and IETF/IESG
The need for this working group was suggested
discussions at the July 1992 IETF. This led to a
from the Internet Society president to form such a
group
The WG will consider the following matters
1. Procedures for making appointments to the
Architecture Board
2. Procedures for resolving disagreements among IETF,
and IAB in matters pertaining to the Internet Standards
3. Methods for assuring that for any particular
Standard, procedures have been followed satisfactorily
all parties so that everyone with an interest has had
fair opportunity to be heard
The WG will begin with a review of the procedures for
IAB appointments as documented in RFC 1358 and a review
the standards-making process documented in RFC 1310.
The WG has a goal of issuing a final report in time for
consideration and publication as an RFC before
ISOC Board of Trustee's meeting in December 1992. Given
compressed timescale, the WG will conduct most of
deliberations by electronic mail on the POISED WG
list. There will also be a preliminary report
discussions at the November 1992 IETF meeting
Crocker [Page 8]
RFC 1396 Poised Report January 1993
Washington, DC
This will be a normal IETF WG, i.e. the mailing list and
discussions will be completely open
Goals and Milestones
Sep 92 Gather initial set of issues and write a
report
Oct 92 Post as an Internet Draft the initial recommendations
the ISOC Board
Nov 92 Open discussion and presentation of the work of the
Working Group at Washington D.C. IETF meeting
Dec 92 Submit the recommendations document to the IESG for
as an Informational RFC. This document will
subsequently transmitted to the ISOC Board
Crocker [Page 9]
RFC 1396 Poised Report January 1993
Security
Security issues are not discussed in this memo
Author's
Stephen D.
Trusted Information Systems, Inc
3060 Washington
Glenwood, MD 21738
Phone: (301) 854-6889
Email: crocker@TIS.
Crocker [Page 10]
if you see any problems within the linking, don't worry be happy,
this is version 0.1 of the Relevance System and you gotta expect some crappy subroutines sometimes,
just be content we did not write this in Java, which would have made this "bigger and better" HAHAHHA.
RFC documents can be found at I.E.T.F.
Relevance System Copyright © 2002 Spectrum WorldResearch
other technical nosh by ServerMasters Corporation
collaboration of BobX
