Update to the Process for Selection of Trustees for the IETF Trust
draft-ietf-iasa2-trust-update-03

Note: This ballot was opened for revision 01 and is now closed.

Deborah Brungard (was No Objection) Yes

(Ben Campbell) Yes

Alissa Cooper Yes

(Spencer Dawkins) Yes

Suresh Krishnan Yes

Comment (2018-10-10 for -01)
How is the IETF Trust chair picked? I think it might be worth specifying here. Also, it would be useful to specify what subset the trustees are eligible (e.g. Nomcom appointees only or all of them) to serve as chair, and how long the chair's term will be.

(I vaguely remember that the old trust administrative procedures used a 1 year term and allowed Nomcom, IESG and IAB appointees to the *IAOC* to be chair - so for sure an update is needed)

Alvaro Retana Yes

Adam Roach Yes

Martin Vigoureux Yes

Ignas Bagdonas No Objection

Benjamin Kaduk No Objection

Warren Kumari No Objection

Comment (2018-10-09 for -01)
I read the protocol action, and I trust the sponsoring AD so have no problem.

This ballot position may be interpreted as "This is outside my area of expertise or have no cycles"

Mirja K├╝hlewind No Objection

Comment (2018-10-10 for -01)
draft-ietf-iasa2-trust-rationale says that the IETF Trust selection of the NomCom is confirmed by the IESG. I didn't find it in this doc though. I guess it's specified in another document but I also couldn't find it quickly after a brief search. So just double-check that this is covered and wondering if it would make sense to state it explicitly in this doc as well.

Alexey Melnikov No Objection

Comment (2018-10-11 for -01)
I generally support this document.

One small question: is it clear from this or other document which body confirms IESG selection?

(Eric Rescorla) No Objection

Comment (2018-10-09 for -01)
Rich version of this review at:
https://mozphab-ietf.devsvcdev.mozaws.net/D12194



COMMENTS
S 1.
>      This memo updates RFCs 4071 and 4371 with regards to the selection of
>      trustees.  All other aspects of the IETF Trust remain as they are
>      today.
>   
>      For a discussion of why this change is needed and a rationale for
>      these specific changes, see [I-D.ietf-iasa2-trust-rationale].

I am surprised not to see any 2119 language here. Doesn't this
document have normative content.