GENDISPATCH

Summary

The GENDISPATCH Working Group met at IETF 126 to discuss proposals regarding updates to IETF correspondence licensing, Nomcom composition and comportment, and to briefly introduce a new proposal on consensus guidelines.

The co-chairs for the session were Shu Ping and Martin Vigneri.

Key Discussion Points

1. Agenda Bash & New Proposals

Pete Resnick and Mark Nottingham requested to add a brief discussion of a newly published draft regarding IETF consensus guidelines.

Roman Danyliw and Eric Rescorla expressed concern about dispatching or making decisions on drafts published less than 24 hours prior.
Mark Nottingham agreed to defer formal dispatch and instead use the end of the session to introduce the concept and gather initial feedback.

2. IETF Correspondence Must Allow Derivative Works

Brian Carpenter presented the proposal based on the slide deck IETF correspondence must allow derivative works.

Context: The proposal aims to update RFC 5378 (BCP 78) to clarify that "IETF correspondence" (e.g., emails, minutes, recordings, appeals) must not contain restrictions on derivative works. Currently, some participants attach legal disclaimers or "no derivative works" notices to their emails, which inhibits normal IETF discussions.
Discussion:
- Legal Counsel Review: Mark Nottingham, John Levine, and Jay Daly (IETF Executive Director) emphasized that the draft must be reviewed by legal counsel before progressing. Jay Daly clarified that legal counsel has already reviewed RFC 5378 and confirmed that using "no derivative works" footers on general mailing list contributions is a misuse of the current rules. Counsel review should focus on the proposed changes rather than interpreting the current text.
- Corporate Footers: Rich Salz and Stefan Wenger suggested expanding the scope to cover other non-binding corporate email footers, while Lars Eggert noted that corporate footers are often forced by IT policies and suggested simply reminding participants that these disclaimers are non-binding.
- Process Approach: Eric Rescorla and Martin Thomson suggested that instead of focusing on email footers, the IETF should eliminate the explicit ability for participants to exclude their contributions from ordinary derivative-work permissions.
- Sponsorship: Warren Kumari, David Schinazi, and Stefan Wenger supported AD sponsorship after legal review. Rich Salz opposed AD sponsorship, arguing that any policy change must go through a full IETF consensus process (though Eric Rescorla noted that AD sponsorship still requires an IETF-wide consensus call).

3. Draft Nomcom Composition and Comportment

Mallory Knodel presented the draft draft-knodel-gendispatch-nomcom-composition-and-comportment (previously focused solely on composition) using the slide deck Draft Nomcom Composition and Comportment.

Context: The draft proposes updates to RFC 8713 to:
1. Modify Nomcom composition rules to ensure gender diversity (preventing single-gender Nomcoms).
2. Define "comportment" rules that treat Nomcom as a formal hiring committee (incorporating standardized evaluations, standardized interview questions, and personal conflict of interest disclosures).
Discussion:
- Comportment vs. Composition: Martin Thomson objected to the comportment section, stating that the random selection process of Nomcom makes some of these strict guidelines unnecessary and that Nomcom historically manages these processes well internally. David Schinazi and Mirja Kühlewind recommended splitting the draft to focus strictly on the gender composition requirement first, as the comportment rules are far more complex and controversial. Mallory Knodel was receptive to focusing on composition.
- Transparency vs. Privacy: Mark Nottingham raised concerns about the tension between Nomcom's radical algorithmic transparency (verifiability) and the privacy of voluntary gender self-disclosure. Tara Whalen suggested that privacy and transparency could coexist through anonymous self-reporting pool structures.
- Representation and Tokenism: Tara Whalen cited research showing that having only one person of a non-dominant gender in a committee of 10 can be counterproductive, and that a threshold of at least one-third is typically needed to shift dynamics.
- Sponsorship vs. Working Group: Roman Danyliw (acting as Area Director) stated he would not AD-sponsor the draft due to its high-impact, cross-cutting nature, noting that a dedicated Working Group or a structured consensus process is necessary for Nomcom eligibility changes.
- Alternative Perspectives: John Klensin expressed concern over a "slippery slope" towards other demographic quotas (e.g., geographic or age) and argued that the real solution is actively increasing the pool of volunteers. Jay Daly pushed back, stating that gender is a fundamental aspect of human society and should not be conflated with organizational or geographic divisions.

4. Any Other Business: Draft on Consensus Guidelines

Mark Nottingham and Pete Resnick briefly introduced their early-stage draft concerning IETF consensus.

Context: The draft attempts to document how consensus is defined and determined within working groups, moving the practice from "lore" to written, robust guidance.
Discussion: The authors invited community feedback on the mailing list and plan to submit an updated version (-01 or -02) for formal discussion at a future meeting.

Decisions and Action Items

IETF Correspondence and Derivative Works:
- Decision: The GENDISPATCH group agreed that this issue should be addressed.
- Action Item: Move the discussion from GENDISPATCH to the existing ipr-wg mailing list. The authors (Brian Carpenter and Robert Wilton) will refine the draft based on feedback before seeking formal review from IETF Legal Counsel.
Nomcom Composition and Comportment:
- Decision: The proposal will not be AD-sponsored in its current state.
- Action Item: The author (Mallory Knodel) was advised to split the draft to focus primarily on gender composition.
- Action Item: Further discussion on the proposal will take place on the active Nomcom eligibility mailing list (eligibility-discuss@ietf.org).

Automatic IETF Minutes