Re: [IAB] Call for Comment: <draft-iab-rfc3677bis> (IETF ISOC Board of Trustee Appointment Procedures)

"Scott O. Bradner" <sob@sobco.com> Wed, 20 April 2016 18:41 UTC

Return-Path: <sob@sobco.com>
X-Original-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4AE4E12EBD0; Wed, 20 Apr 2016 11:41:24 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.109
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.109 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RDNS_NONE=0.793, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 6qrqFfRDcU7I; Wed, 20 Apr 2016 11:41:23 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from sobco.sobco.com (unknown [136.248.127.164]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ADH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 0B27912EE0D; Wed, 20 Apr 2016 11:41:19 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by sobco.sobco.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1FC5F1C6E1D9; Wed, 20 Apr 2016 14:41:18 -0400 (EDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at sobco.com
Received: from sobco.sobco.com ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (sobco.sobco.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id eZwFmklsdskD; Wed, 20 Apr 2016 14:41:15 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from [10.251.213.164] (unknown [65.112.10.217]) by sobco.sobco.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id B228B1C6E1CE; Wed, 20 Apr 2016 14:41:15 -0400 (EDT)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Mime-Version: 1.0 (1.0)
Subject: Re: [IAB] Call for Comment: <draft-iab-rfc3677bis> (IETF ISOC Board of Trustee Appointment Procedures)
From: "Scott O. Bradner" <sob@sobco.com>
X-Mailer: iPhone Mail (13E238)
In-Reply-To: <2BF65369-2400-46DC-88A4-5159A3B8FBAB@vigilsec.com>
Date: Wed, 20 Apr 2016 14:41:14 -0400
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <1606171A-73E6-4553-AFB4-9C5AE2C6B7DE@sobco.com>
References: <20160224175935.21103.69618.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <6EC360A9-BE71-4EFF-A4DF-9D9F8CD0614F@harvard.edu> <2BF65369-2400-46DC-88A4-5159A3B8FBAB@vigilsec.com>
To: Russ Housley <housley@vigilsec.com>
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/bskkrYVE-ftwknZVabkTpctD7UI>
Cc: "architecture-discuss@ietf.org" <architecture-discuss@ietf.org>, IAB <iab@iab.org>, Scott Bradner <sob@harvard.edu>, IETF <ietf@ietf.org>
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <ietf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/ietf/>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 20 Apr 2016 18:41:24 -0000

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@vigilsec.com> 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@harvard.edu> 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@iab.org> 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@ietf.org and iab@iab.org.
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 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.
>>> 
>> 
>