Summary: Has enough positions to pass.
I find the wording in Section 2 to be a bit odd: it sounds like it’s saying that things have always been the case before, but are perhaps so no longer. Can we re-word it a little to make it clear that these aspects have not changed, though other details of the relationship have? Maybe something like this (adjust as you see appropriate): ”ISOC and the IETF have historically been and remain philosophically aligned. ISOC's connection with the IETF community has always played an important role in its policy work. ISOC has always been an advocate for multistakeholder processes, which include the technical community. These have not changed, and open standards are an explicit part of one of the focus areas in ISOC's mission: Advancing the development and application of Internet infrastructure, technologies, and open standards.” Where Section 4 cites RFC 7437, it should cite 7437bis. While I always find British spellings delightful, ISOC’s own web site uses “program” (see, for example, https://www.internetsociety.org/fellowship/ietf-policy-program/). We should be consistent with that. The first sentence of Section 7 leads me to expect the paragraph to continue talking about funding from ISOC, but it has nothing further to do with that. I suggest a paragraph break after the first sentence, and removing ”in particular” from the second. Note that it is possible that some of those services are provided by ISOC or involve ISOC staff. I would say “may be provided”. Does that not feel better?
Two easy to address comments: (1) §1: "As a result of the the IASA 2.0 structure [I-D.ietf-iasa2-rfc4071bis] and formation of the IETF LLC, the relationship between the IETF and ISOC has changed." I think that I-D.ietf-iasa2-rfc4071bis should be a Normative reference. (2) I-D.ietf-iasa2-rfc4071bis uses this document as a Normative reference, and points to it when defining ISOC (in §4.1); but there is no explicit reference to ISOC, or even its mission (which seems to be quoted in §2). Please add one.