Colleagues, here is what I hope could be a co-chair selection process that the WG can adopt. It's been tweaked to take account of recent feedback and should now be free of ambiguities. The most significant change is a new Clause 7: how to handle things whenever an unforseen situation arises. ie The WG will decide how best to handle these situations as and when they arise. This should hopefully avoid further rat-holing on hypothetical corner cases. Please remember this process is not etched in stone. It's not Holy Writ. It's supposed to be a "good enough" starting point. If later experience tells us that assessment is wrong or if a better mechanism happens to come along, the WG can of course apply its usual consensus based decision-making to change or replace whatever process is currently in use. Traffic on the list about this topic has been rather light and this has made it difficult to make an assessment on whether consensus has been reached or not. The WG needs to make a decision about this by RIPE70 - ie next week. With that in mind, your co-chairs have decided that silence implies consent. So unless there are substantive comments to the proposed text -- meaningful objections supported by an justification/explanation and replacement text -- the intention will be to adopt the proposed text at the WG meeting next week. Similarly, if anyone objects to this silence-implies-consent-approach or feels more time is needed, please speak up. Assuming the WG adopts this process, it will be invoked for the first time later this year, probably at or around RIPE71. # # $Id: appointment,v 1.9 2015/05/05 12:53:39 jim Exp $ # [1] The DNS WG will have N co-chairs. N will normally be 2 or 3, as determined by the WG. [2] A co-chair will serve a term of N years, where N is the number of co-chairs. Terms will be staggered so that one term expires every year. [3] The WG will be given adequate notice that a co-chair's term is ending and to invite applications for that position. Anyone can volunteer for appointment except that at the end of a second consecutive term, the outgoing co-chair may not do so. [4] At the end of a co-chair's term, the WG will decide by consensus who is appointed to the available co-chair position. In the event of a tie, the consensus tied candidates will draw lots. [5] The WG may decide by consensus to remove a WG co-chair at any time. [6] Consensus will be determined on the DNS WG mailing list. The consensus judgement will be made by the serving WG co-chair(s) and will exclude the co-chair(s) who is the subject of that consensus judgement. [7] Any issues relating to the selection or replacement of a co-chair which are not covered by the above will be decided by WG consensus. When the WG is unable to reach consensus, the matter will be referred to the RIPE Chair (or their deputy) whose decision shall be final. [8] Any appeal over a consensus decision will be heard by the RIPE Chair (or their deputy) whose decision shall be final.