> On Feb 28, 2016, at 3:06 PM, Michael StJohns <mstjohns@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On 2/28/2016 1:48 PM, Brian E Carpenter wrote: >> Well, OK. >> >> NEW NEW: >> If ISOC further modifies [ISOC-By-Laws] concerning the >> number of IETF appointments to the ISOC Board or the >> timing thereof, the IAB may make corresponding >> modifications to the frequency and the timing of the >> processes embodied in this document. Such changes will >> be announced via an IAB statement. The IAB must then >> propose a corresponding update to this document within >> one year. >> >> Regards >> Brian > > > I'm always somewhat pained by toothless requirements. E.g. what's the downside if the IAB fails propose an update, or if they drag out the completion of the update for several years because other things are more important? > > The above is either too much or too little. So if its too much then: > > Replace 3.4.1 and 3.4.2 with: "The IAB shall appoint the IETF-sourced members to the ISOC board with the terms and schedule for such members as described by the ISOC charter, and as they are notified by the ISOC board of IETF-sourced vacancies.” s/charter/by laws/ Scott > > [I see no reason for the BCP to go into the details of which years as a) its not under the IETF's control, and b) it's subject to change if the ISOC board needs to move things around] > > If its too little then: > > replace 3.4.2 with the Brian's text (replacing "proposed" with "completed") and adding: "If the IAB fails to complete a change to the BCP within 1 year, then their power to appoint the IETF-sourced members of the ISOC board shall lapse and such power shall devolve upon the most recently seated IETF nominations committee. The confirmation of such appointments shall remain with the IESG. The power to make such appointments shall revert to the IAB upon publication of the updated BCP." > > [Basically, if the IAB doesn't have time to complete the BCP, then it probably doesn't have time to deal with the ISOC appointments] > > > To be clear, I'd go with the "too much" alternative above and just say that the appointments are made on the schedule described by the ISOC. > > On the other hand, noting that the language in the rationale section (1.2) is no longer a completely accurate statement of reality (cf appointment of IAOC members), it may make sense to re-address who should be doing these appointments. Perhaps the IAOC is a better body? Or this can be folded into the Nomcom process? Not making any recommendations here, just noting that if we're updating this document, we should make sure it's all valid as of the date of publication. > > Later, Mike > > >> >> On 29/02/2016 05:11, Bob Hinden wrote: >>>> On Feb 27, 2016, at 12:39 PM, John C Klensin <john-ietf@xxxxxxx> wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> --On Saturday, February 27, 2016 12:35 -0800 Barry Leiba >>>> <barryleiba@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >>>> >>>>>> NEW: >>>>>> If ISOC further modifies [ISOC-By-Laws] concerning the >>>>>> number of IETF appointments to the ISOC Board or the >>>>>> timing thereof, the IAB may make corresponding >>>>>> modifications to the frequency and the timing of the >>>>>> processes embodied in this document, pending any >>>>>> modification to this document. Such changes will be >>>>>> announced via an IAB statement. >>>>> I think a change such as that would be good. >>>> I agree but, if the intent is that the IAB modifications and >>>> statement are a stopgap, to avoid discontinuities, etc., but >>>> that the IAB is still expected to move expeditiously to get the >>>> BCP updated, that could be said a lot more clearly. >>> I agree. The IAB shouldn’t delay it’s board appointment until this document is updated, but it should do an update in a reasonable amount of time. >>> >>> Thanks, >>> Bob >>> >>> >