Network Working Group M. Knodel Internet-Draft NYU Intended status: Informational T. Tarakiyee Expires: 18 February 2027 Independent 17 August 2026 Gender Representation in the IETF Nominating Committees draft-knodel-nomcom-gender-representation-04 Abstract This document extends the existing limit on nomcom representation by organization ([RFC8713], Section 4.17) so that not all voting members of the IETF Nominating Committee (nomcom) belong to the same gender. About This Document This note is to be removed before publishing as an RFC. The latest revision of this draft can be found at https://mallory.github.io/nomcom-gender-representation/draft-knodel- nomcom-gender-representation.html. Status information for this document may be found at https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft- knodel-nomcom-gender-representation/. Source for this draft and an issue tracker can be found at https://github.com/mallory/nomcom-gender-representation. Status of This Memo This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79. Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet- Drafts is at https://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/. Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." This Internet-Draft will expire on 18 February 2027. Knodel & Tarakiyee Expires 18 February 2027 [Page 1] Internet-Draft nomcom-gender-representation August 2026 Copyright Notice Copyright (c) 2026 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 (https://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 Revised BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as described in the Revised BSD License. Table of Contents 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 2. Conventions and Definitions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 3. Gender Representation in the IETF Nomcom . . . . . . . . . . 3 4. Suggested Remedy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 4.1. Opt-in Pool . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 4.2. Reserved Seats . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 4.3. Selection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 4.4. Rationale . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 5. Privacy Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 6. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 7. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 8. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 8.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 8.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 Appendix A. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 1. Introduction The nomcom is, in every functional sense, a hiring committee: it solicits candidates, reviews their qualifications, interviews them, and selects who will fill the IETF's most senior leadership roles. This document extends [RFC8713]'s limit on nomcom representation by organization to ensure no nomcom is ever composed of one gender. This is because the literature supports the claims that lack of gender diversity in hiring teams reinforces under representation of gender minorities in leadership positions and that lack of gender diversity in leadership perpetuates gender discrimination [Bohnet2016]. Knodel & Tarakiyee Expires 18 February 2027 [Page 2] Internet-Draft nomcom-gender-representation August 2026 This document does not address the nomcom's comportment once seated. A future revision might extend [RFC8713] with conduct standards for non-discrimination, personal conflict of interest, and consistent candidate evaluation, drawing on precedent such as ICANN's Nominating Committee Code of Conduct [ICANNCoC]. 2. Conventions and Definitions The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in BCP 14 [RFC2119] [RFC8174] when, and only when, they appear in all capitals, as shown here. "Dominant gender" means the gender held by the majority of eligible nomcom volunteers in a given year. "Opt-in pool" means the pool defined in Section 4.1. 3. Gender Representation in the IETF Nomcom [RFC8713] already limits nomcom representation by organization: Section 4.17 provides that no more than two voting volunteers may share the same primary affiliation. This safeguard addresses one axis of nomcom capture and imbalance, but it does not address gender. The IETF considers influence and weaknesses in nomcom selection in [RFC8713]. The rationale for the two-per-organization limit, as documented in the "Oral Tradition" appendix of [RFC8713], is to avoid the appearance of improper bias in choosing IETF leadership: rather than defining precise rules for what counts as "affiliation," the IETF community relies on the honor and integrity of participants to make the limit work in practice. Likewise, gender diversity in IETF leadership should be considered a community strengthening exercise insofar as gender diversity has been shown to lead to more productivity, creativity and reinforces a culture of respect and value for all participants. If we consider the nomcom as a "team", it will itself benefit from having more gender diversity among its voting members. The nomcom itself conventionally asks candidates some form of the question, 'Describe your perspective on what diversity should mean for the IETF, and the degree to which existing IETF participation meets those expectations. What have you done in the past to encourage participation by those who might otherwise not have considered engaging with the IETF?' implying diversity is regarded in the IETF. Knodel & Tarakiyee Expires 18 February 2027 [Page 3] Internet-Draft nomcom-gender-representation August 2026 To address gender representation in the IETF nomcom, at a minimum we can ensure that all voting members are not of the same gender. All attempts to ensure gender representation in the nomcom should include: a. increase participation in the community from women and non-binary individuals so that the eligible pool is more gender diverse. b. encourage eligible women and non-binary members of the community to accept selection to the nomcom. While the IETF does not routinely confirm the gender of volunteers, we have committed to improving gender diversity in the community by way of measuring it and identifying concrete steps to mitigate imbalance. 4. Suggested Remedy Section 4.17 of [RFC8713] constrains nomcom composition by primary affiliation. This document adds a second composition constraint, applied at the same point in the process, in the form of a stratified selection over two pools, a mixed gender pool and an opt-in non- dominant genders pool. 4.1. Opt-in Pool An eligible volunteer MAY opt into a self-declared pool of volunteers who do not identify as members of the dominant gender (the "opt-in pool"). Membership in the opt-in pool is the only information disclosed. Volunteers in the opt-in pool may also opt into the mixed gender pool. 4.2. Reserved Seats Let n be the number of voting volunteer slots, p the size of the opt- in pool, and t the size of the mixed gender pool. The number of reserved seats r is determined as follows: * If p is 0, no seats are reserved, and the IETF community MUST be notified that all n voting volunteers may share one gender that year for this reason. * Otherwise, r = min(p, max(3, min(floor(n/2), floor(n * p / t)))). Knodel & Tarakiyee Expires 18 February 2027 [Page 4] Internet-Draft nomcom-gender-representation August 2026 4.3. Selection The r reserved seats MUST be selected first, by an [RFC3797] selection over the published opt-in pool list. The remaining n - r seats MUST then be selected by a second [RFC3797] selection over the general pool, excluding volunteers already selected. Both selections MAY use the same publicly announced seed material and be conducted as a single ceremony. The limit in Section 4.17 of [RFC8713] continues to apply across both selections. 4.4. Rationale Each selection is an ordinary [RFC3797] draw over a list published in advance, and no seat is conditional on information absent from that list, so every seat remains independently verifiable. A rule that skips candidates mid-draw does not have this property: it requires volunteers' genders to be known at selection time, which either breaks verifiability if that data is private or forces disclosure if it is not. The proportional cap ensures the mechanism never produces a composition the volunteer pool does not already support. It removes the variance of a flat draw rather than adding preference. The floor of three is deliberately super-proportional when the pool is skewed. The literature on tokenism finds that a lone minority member of a deliberative body carries a visibility burden and is treated as a category representative rather than as an individual [Kanter1977], and that this shifts at around three members KonradKramerErkut2008 [Torchia2011]. Stratified selection over declared strata is established practice in bodies constituted by lot [OECD2020], and compositional constraints are the norm rather than the exception among comparable nominating bodies: ICANN's Nominating Committee is constituted from designated seats [ICANNBylaws]. This section would update Section 4.17 of [RFC8713]. 5. Privacy Considerations Serving on the nomcom is voluntary. Public disclosure of one's gender and pronouns in the IETF Datatracker should remain voluntary. Disclosure of one's gender during meeting registration for the purposes of tracking communty diversity should remain voluntary and non-public. Knodel & Tarakiyee Expires 18 February 2027 [Page 5] Internet-Draft nomcom-gender-representation August 2026 Under Section 4, no volunteer is asked to state a gender, and no gender is inferred from pronouns used in mailing list discussion, recorded meetings, or the Datatracker. The only disclosure is opt-in pool membership. Because [RFC3797] verifiability requires each pool to be published in advance, membership in the opt-in pool is public. Volunteers MUST be told this at the point of declaration. Gender data collected for community measurement, whether at meeting registration or in the Datatracker, MUST NOT be used to construct the opt-in pool. 6. Security Considerations Self-declaration is not verified. As with the affiliation limit in Section 4.17 of [RFC8713], the mechanism relies on the honour and integrity of participants rather than on precise rules. 7. IANA Considerations This document has no IANA actions. 8. References 8.1. Normative References [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997, . [RFC3797] Eastlake 3rd, D., "Publicly Verifiable Nominations Committee (NomCom) Random Selection", RFC 3797, DOI 10.17487/RFC3797, June 2004, . [RFC8174] Leiba, B., "Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC 2119 Key Words", BCP 14, RFC 8174, DOI 10.17487/RFC8174, May 2017, . 8.2. Informative References [Bohnet2016] Bohnet, I., "How to Take the Bias Out of Interviews", 2016, . Knodel & Tarakiyee Expires 18 February 2027 [Page 6] Internet-Draft nomcom-gender-representation August 2026 [ChildsKrook2008] Childs, S. and M. L. Krook, "Critical Mass Theory and Women's Political Representation", Political Studies 56(3), pp. 725-736, 2008, . [ICANNBylaws] ICANN, "ICANN Bylaws, Article 8, Section 8.2 (Nominating Committee composition)", 2024, . [ICANNCoC] ICANN, "ICANN Nominating Committee Background Information and Code of Conduct", 2018, . [Kanter1977] Kanter, R. M., "Some Effects of Proportions on Group Life: Skewed Sex Ratios and Responses to Token Women", American Journal of Sociology 82(5), pp. 965-990, 1977, . [KonradKramerErkut2008] Konrad, A. M., Kramer, V. W., and S. Erkut, "Critical Mass: The Impact of Three or More Women on Corporate Boards", Organizational Dynamics 37(2), pp. 145-164, 2008, . [OECD2020] OECD, "Innovative Citizen Participation and New Democratic Institutions: Catching the Deliberative Wave", 2020, . [RFC8713] Kucherawy, M., Ed., Hinden, R., Ed., and J. Livingood, Ed., "IAB, IESG, IETF Trust, and IETF LLC Selection, Confirmation, and Recall Process: Operation of the IETF Nominating and Recall Committees", BCP 10, RFC 8713, DOI 10.17487/RFC8713, February 2020, . [RFC9389] Duke, M., "Nominating Committee Eligibility", BCP 10, RFC 9389, DOI 10.17487/RFC9389, April 2023, . Knodel & Tarakiyee Expires 18 February 2027 [Page 7] Internet-Draft nomcom-gender-representation August 2026 [Torchia2011] Torchia, M., Calabro, A., and M. Huse, "Women Directors on Corporate Boards: From Tokenism to Critical Mass", Journal of Business Ethics 102, pp. 299-317, 2011, . Appendix A. Acknowledgments Thanks to Martin Thomson and Suresh Krishnan for informed initial thoughts on bringing this idea to the community. Authors' Addresses Mallory Knodel NYU Email: mallory.knodel@nyu.edu Tara Tarakiyee Independent Email: me@tarakiyee.com Knodel & Tarakiyee Expires 18 February 2027 [Page 8]