Gender Representation in the IETF Nominating Committees
draft-knodel-nomcom-gender-representation-06
This document is an Internet-Draft (I-D).
Anyone may submit an I-D to the IETF.
This I-D is not endorsed by the IETF and has no formal standing in the
IETF standards process.
| Document | Type | Active Internet-Draft (individual) | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Authors | Mallory Knodel , Tara Tarakiyee | ||
| Last updated | 2026-10-07 | ||
| RFC stream | (None) | ||
| Intended RFC status | (None) | ||
| Formats | |||
| Stream | Stream state | (No stream defined) | |
| Consensus boilerplate | Unknown | ||
| RFC Editor Note | (None) | ||
| IESG | IESG state | I-D Exists | |
| Telechat date | (None) | ||
| Responsible AD | (None) | ||
| Send notices to | (None) |
draft-knodel-nomcom-gender-representation-06
Network Working Group M. Knodel
Internet-Draft NYU
Intended status: Informational T. Tarakiyee
Expires: 10 April 2027 Independent
7 October 2026
Gender Representation in the IETF Nominating Committees
draft-knodel-nomcom-gender-representation-06
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.
It guarantees up to five voting seats to volunteers who opt into a
self-declared pool, and changes the selection only in years when a
plain random draw would seat fewer.
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 10 April 2027.
Knodel & Tarakiyee Expires 10 April 2027 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft nomcom-gender-representation October 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. Guaranteed Seats . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
4.3. Selection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
4.4. Rationale . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
5. Privacy Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
6. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
7. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
8. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
8.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
8.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
Appendix A. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
Appendix B. Changes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
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.
Like the limit by organization, this is to avoid the appearance of
improper bias in choosing IETF leadership: a random draw is
representative over many years, but in any single year it can seat a
committee drawn from one gender.
Knodel & Tarakiyee Expires 10 April 2027 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft nomcom-gender-representation October 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 named as such by the nomcom chair
in the call for volunteers, based on the composition of past nomcoms.
At the time of writing it is men.
"General pool" means all eligible volunteers in a given year,
including those in the opt-in pool. "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.
Knodel & Tarakiyee Expires 10 April 2027 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft nomcom-gender-representation October 2026
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.
Five of the twelve nomcoms seated between 2015 and 2026 had no women
among their voting members. 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,
it measures gender diversity through its annual community survey, in
which women were under 10% of respondents in 2025 [IETFSurvey2025].
The IETF LLC commissioned an independent report on the experience of
women participating in the IETF [Kaeo2023], and IETF leadership has
stated its commitment to gender diversity and reported on steps taken
in response [IESGFollowUp2024].
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 guaranteed
minimum number of seats for volunteers in an opt-in pool.
4.1. Opt-in Pool
The nomcom chair MUST name the dominant gender, as defined in
Section 2, in the call for volunteers.
An eligible volunteer ([RFC8713], as updated by [RFC9389]) MAY opt
into a self-declared pool of volunteers who do not identify as
members of the dominant gender (the "opt-in pool"). The opt-in pool
is defined by self-identification alone. Membership in the opt-in
pool is the only information disclosed. Every volunteer in the opt-
in pool is also in the general pool.
A volunteer who opts in by mistake MAY correct the declaration at any
time before the general pool list is published. Once published, opt-
in pool membership is fixed, consistent with the verifiability
requirement in Section 4.3.
Knodel & Tarakiyee Expires 10 April 2027 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft nomcom-gender-representation October 2026
4.2. Guaranteed Seats
Let p be the size of the opt-in pool. The number of guaranteed seats
is r = min(5, p): five, or the whole opt-in pool if it has fewer than
five members.
If p is 0, no seats are guaranteed, and the IETF community MUST be
notified that all voting volunteers may share one gender that year
for this reason.
4.3. Selection
A single [RFC3797] selection MUST be run over the published general
pool list, which MUST show which volunteers are in the opt-in pool.
Volunteers are seated in list order, subject to the limit in
Section 4.17 of [RFC8713], with one exception: once the number of
unfilled seats equals the number of guaranteed seats not yet held by
opt-in pool members, only opt-in pool members are seated. If no opt-
in pool member who can be seated remains on the list, the exception
lapses and the remaining seats are filled in list order, starting
with any volunteers it passed over.
For example, take a nomcom with eleven voting seats, an opt-in pool
of one volunteer (so r = min(5, 1) = 1), and a published general pool
list, in draw order, that begins V1 through V10 and then, in position
15, the single opt-in pool member Z. Seats 1 through 10 are filled
by V1 through V10 in order; no exception applies yet, since the one
guaranteed seat is not yet held and more than one seat remains
unfilled. Before the eleventh seat, one seat is unfilled and one
guaranteed seat is not yet held, so the exception applies: V11
through V14 are passed over, and Z is seated in the eleventh seat.
If a seated volunteer is later replaced under [RFC8713], the same
rule applies to the choice of replacement.
4.4. Rationale
The selection is a single [RFC3797] draw over a list published in
advance. Opt-in pool membership is part of that list, so no seat
depends on information absent from it and the outcome remains
independently verifiable. A rule that depended on volunteers'
genders would not have this property: it would either break
verifiability, if that data is private, or force disclosure.
The guarantee is a minimum, not an addition: it takes effect only
when a plain draw would seat fewer than r opt-in pool members, and
otherwise the outcome is that of the plain draw. As the opt-in pool
Knodel & Tarakiyee Expires 10 April 2027 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft nomcom-gender-representation October 2026
approaches half of all volunteers the guarantee almost never takes
effect (about 5% of draws at parity), so nothing needs to change if a
different gender becomes dominant.
When the pool is skewed, the guarantee is deliberately super-
proportional. The literature on tokenism finds that members of a
small minority in a deliberative body carry a visibility burden and
are treated as representatives of a category rather than as
individuals [Kanter1977]. Studies of corporate boards report that
this changes at around three members ([KonradKramerErkut2008],
[Torchia2011]). These are studies of standing boards, not selection
committees, and a fixed threshold is contested [ChildsKrook2008];
while three bears out in the evidence as a floor below which the
effect is most acute, we set five as the cap because it approaches
parity for a nomcom with eleven seats. Volunteers seated under the
guarantee serve as individuals and do not represent a gender.
Stratification by declared characteristics 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 Sections 4.16 and 4.17 of [RFC8713].
Section 4.16 calls a selection method fair "if each eligible
volunteer is equally likely to be selected". The affiliation limit
already qualifies that definition, and this document would qualify it
further: volunteers remain equally likely to be selected within the
opt-in pool and within the rest of the general pool. The method
remains unbiased in the sense of Section 4.16: once the list is
published, no one can influence the outcome.
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 community diversity should remain voluntary and
non-public.
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 the list to be published in
advance, membership in the opt-in pool is public. It stays public:
the list is archived, and membership can be compiled across years.
Knodel & Tarakiyee Expires 10 April 2027 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft nomcom-gender-representation October 2026
Volunteers MUST be told this at the point of declaration. For some
volunteers, opt-in pool membership may reveal more about them than
they have otherwise made public. 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. The challenge period in
Section 4.17 of [RFC8713] still applies to the selection, but a
challenge cannot rest on a volunteer's declaration. As with the
affiliation limit, the mechanism relies on the honour and integrity
of participants rather than on precise rules.
When the opt-in pool is small, its members are far more likely to be
seated than other volunteers, and when it has five or fewer members
all of them are seated, subject to the affiliation limit. This is an
incentive to declare, including for organizations seeking seats,
though the affiliation limit bounds what any one organization can
gain.
A small opt-in pool may also mean the same volunteers serve
repeatedly. Sitting nomcom members cannot be considered for the
positions that nomcom fills ([RFC8713], Section 5.11), so frequent
service has a cost for those volunteers and for the pool of
candidates.
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,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2119>.
[RFC3797] Eastlake 3rd, D., "Publicly Verifiable Nominations
Committee (NomCom) Random Selection", RFC 3797,
DOI 10.17487/RFC3797, June 2004,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc3797>.
[RFC8174] Leiba, B., "Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC
2119 Key Words", BCP 14, RFC 8174, DOI 10.17487/RFC8174,
May 2017, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8174>.
Knodel & Tarakiyee Expires 10 April 2027 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft nomcom-gender-representation October 2026
8.2. Informative References
[ChildsKrook2008]
Childs, S. and M. L. Krook, "Critical Mass Theory and
Women's Political Representation", Political
Studies 56(3), pp. 725-736, 2008,
<https://mlkrook.org/pdf/childs_krook_2008.pdf>.
[ICANNBylaws]
ICANN, "ICANN Bylaws, Article 8, Section 8.2 (Nominating
Committee composition)", 2024,
<https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/governance/bylaws-
en/#article8>.
[ICANNCoC] ICANN, "ICANN Nominating Committee Background Information
and Code of Conduct", 2018,
<https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/nomcom2019-conduct-
2018-12-07-en>.
[IESGFollowUp2024]
Danyliw, R., "Follow-up to the 'Experience of Women
Participating in the IETF' Report", 7 November 2024,
<https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/121/materials/
slides-121-systers-sessb-follow-up-to-the-experience-of-
women-participating-in-the-ietf-report-00>.
[IETFSurvey2025]
Daley, J. and A. Gohil, "IETF Community Survey 2025", 14
July 2026,
<https://www.ietf.org/blog/ietf-community-survey-2025/>.
[Kaeo2023] Kaeo, M., "Experience of Women Participating in the IETF",
October 2023, <https://www.ietf.org/media/documents/
Experience_of_Women_Participating_in_the_IETF.pdf>.
[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,
<https://doi.org/10.1086/226425>.
[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,
<https://doi.org/10.1016/j.orgdyn.2008.02.005>.
Knodel & Tarakiyee Expires 10 April 2027 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft nomcom-gender-representation October 2026
[OECD2020] OECD, "Innovative Citizen Participation and New Democratic
Institutions: Catching the Deliberative Wave", 2020,
<https://doi.org/10.1787/339306da-en>.
[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,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8713>.
[RFC9389] Duke, M., "Nominating Committee Eligibility", BCP 10,
RFC 9389, DOI 10.17487/RFC9389, April 2023,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc9389>.
[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,
<https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-011-0815-z>.
Appendix A. Acknowledgments
Thanks to Martin Thomson and Suresh Krishnan for informed initial
thoughts on bringing this idea to the community. The selection rule
in Section 4.3 follows a suggestion by Joel Halpern. Thanks to Brian
Carpenter, Stephen Farrell, Bron Gondwana, Russ Housley, Christian
Huitema, Ted Lemon, John Levine, S. Moonesamy, Mark Nottingham,
Michael Richardson, Rich Salz, Michael StJohns, Andrew Sullivan and
Rob Wilton for review and comments on the eligibility-discuss list.
Appendix B. Changes
This section is to be removed before publishing as an RFC.
Since -05:
* Raised the guaranteed-seat cap from three to five (r = min(5, p)).
* Made the nomcom chair's duty to name the dominant gender in the
call for volunteers an explicit requirement in Section 4.1.
* Added a procedure for correcting an erroneous opt-in declaration
before the general pool list is published.
* Added a worked example of the selection procedure.
Since -04:
Knodel & Tarakiyee Expires 10 April 2027 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft nomcom-gender-representation October 2026
* Replaced the two-draw reserved-seat formula with a single draw and
a guaranteed minimum of three seats, which takes effect only when
a plain draw would seat fewer.
* Volunteers in the opt-in pool are always in the general pool;
"mixed gender pool" is no longer used.
* The nomcom chair names the dominant gender in the call for
volunteers.
* Replaced the hiring-literature rationale in the Introduction with
the rationale [RFC8713] gives for the affiliation limit.
* Sourced the statements in Section 3 about measuring gender
diversity.
* Qualified the evidence for a minimum of three.
* Noted that the mechanism would also update the fairness definition
in Section 4.16 of [RFC8713].
* Expanded Privacy and Security Considerations: permanence of the
published list, challenges, the incentive to declare, repeat
service.
Authors' Addresses
Mallory Knodel
NYU
Email: mallory.knodel@nyu.edu
Tara Tarakiyee
Independent
Email: me@tarakiyee.com
Knodel & Tarakiyee Expires 10 April 2027 [Page 10]