On 11/25/2016 1:55 PM, Andrew Sullivan wrote:
On Sat, Nov 26, 2016 at 10:49:29AM +1300, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
Could you add something about the expectation being to arrange staggered
terms, so that a simultaneous turnover of all three members can be avoided?
This doesn't have to be a rule, just an intention.
The IAB's plan is to put that intention into its internal policies,
instead, on the grounds that it will be obvious to any competent IAB
that complete turnover is undesirable without tying a future IAB's
hands if something dramatic happens. Is it enough that you know that?
Andrew,
While I suspect that what you describe is sufficient in practical terms,
operationally, there is nonetheless such a long-established practice of
including this bit of procedural requirement into a foundational
document like this that it seems quite odd not to have it. There.
d/
--
Dave Crocker
Brandenburg InternetWorking
bbiw.net