Scott: I think that the language can be aligned with very minimal changes. If I have understood the potential change to the ISOC Bylaws, this will work with the current bylaws and the poposed ones, if they are approved. OLD: This document describes the process for the general, annual appointment of ISOC Trustees to fill the seats of Trustees whose terms are ending. However, if an IETF-appointed Trustee is unable to serve his or her full term, the IAB may, at its discretion, immediately select a replacement to serve the remainder of the term using the interim process defined in Section 3.5.1. If the IAB does not invoke the interim process, the next annual selection process will fill the vacancy (if the vacant term does not end at that point) as well as the regular appointment for that selection cycle. NEW: This document describes the process for the general, annual appointment of ISOC Trustees to fill the seats of Trustees whose terms are ending. However, if an IETF-appointed Trustee is unable to serve his or her full term, the IAB may, at its discretion, select a replacement to serve the remainder of the term using the interim process defined in Section 3.5.1, with a start date consistent with the [ISOC-By-Laws]. If the IAB does not invoke the interim process, the next annual selection process will fill the vacancy (if the vacant term does not end at that point) as well as the regular appointment for that selection cycle. Russ On Apr 20, 2016, at 2:41 PM, Scott O. Bradner <sob@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > My quick read of the vacancy process assumed an approach that made an appointment when a vacancy occurs and the proposal is to have the IETF follow the same process as the other groups that select trustees and add the seat to the next selection cycle > > I may have misread the 3677bis proposal > If so please correct me > > Scott > > > Sent from my iPhone > >> On Apr 20, 2016, at 2:18 PM, Russ Housley <housley@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> >> Scott: >> >> I cannot see how the change that you are proposing to the ISOC Bylaws has any impact on the content of rfc3677bis. What am I missing? >> >> If I am not missing anything, then it seems to me that waiting to move forward on this is counter to may of the other comments that we got about acting promptly to keep our document in sync with the current bylaws. >> >> Russ >> >>> On Feb 25, 2016, at 7:27 AM, Bradner, Scott <sob@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >>> >>> re section 3.5 mid-term vacancies >>> >>> please hold off on this particular section for a bit - I am in the middle of proposing some changes >>> to the ISOC bylaws - mostly to clear up some confusions - and one of these changes concerns IETF vacancy appointments >>> >>> the current bylaws do not limit when the IETF can appoint someone to fill a vacancy but do limit when such an >>> appointment can take office to the start of the ISOC mid year meeting, when all new trustees take office - which might >>> be a bit frustrating to the appointee >>> >>> I am proposing a bylaws update that will put the IETF appointment t fill a vacancy to be the same >>> as it is for the chapters & org members - with until the next appointment cycle (to do otherwise >>> provided unequal treatment for the IETF) >>> >>> in any case some change is needed to clarify the existing situation >>> >>> Scott >>> >>>> On Feb 24, 2016, at 12:59 PM, IAB Executive Administrative Manager <execd@xxxxxxx> wrote: >>>> >>>> This is an announcement of an IETF-wide Call for Comment on >>>> draft-iab-rfc3677bis-00. >>>> >>>> The document is being considered for publication as a Best Current >>>> Practice RFC within the IAB stream, and is available for inspection >>>> here: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-iab-rfc3677bis/ >>>> >>>> The Call for Comment will last until 2016-03-23. Please send comments to >>>> architecture-discuss@xxxxxxxx and iab@xxxxxxx. >>>> >>>> >>>> Abstract >>>> >>>> This memo, which obsoletes RFC3677, outlines the process by which the >>>> IETF makes a selection of an Internet Society (ISOC) Board of >>>> Trustees appointment. >>>> >>> >>