Alright. I haven't waded in to the technical/practical issues, particularly with the timing of these. There's no getting around how frequent these would be, and you will have to answer for what happens if the length of time is not met, as Cretox asked. I am curious about that stuff too, but I'm more interested in wrestling with the relation between this idea and the recall.
It is kind of funny to me that recalls have this sacred, almost untouchable quality to them, this reverence that I can see in your opening post, and I get the feeling you don't want to overuse them or diminish their significance by using them in almost an overkill kind of way. That's fine, but it's kind of funny then that your solution is to make it easier to potentially get rid of someone for less than what we normally consider in a recall. The tool to remove an official is awesome and should only be used when absolutely necessary, so you don't want to use it as a performance review tool for SC members who may otherwise be perfectly great people and decent at their job, just not as high performing as they could or should be for how important a job it is...but we can have a routine re-vote with a lower threshold to take them out of office, and that makes it okay to remove them more easily than the super important big deal recall process, which again, shouldn't be used for these not-as-big-a-deal reasons because that diminishes it somehow. Given the way we tend to think about recalls, I think we're creating a bizarre situation where a change like this is desirable despite undercutting the checks inherent in the way the recall currently exists. If we changed our thinking on recalls, I think this would be a bit easier to swallow.
I understand and generally agree with your thinking on recalls. I don't think they should be done frivolously, and one reason we don't see them happen for SC members who perhaps fall short of your expectations is because those things can seem to some people to be frivolous reasons to employ a recall. However, I accept that the kinds of criteria you have in mind for SC members are not frivolous to you, and I don't think you're alone there. I think that's the point of your bill - if I am reading your intentions correctly, you want us to focus less on these big obvious bad things that lead to recall, and place greater emphasis on a higher standard of basic performance. This is essentially a system to essentially "re-elect" SC members, and as some have pointed out, this can turn into popularity contests and lead to a string of bad luck or bad timing causing the SC member to fall out. But it would put a lot more emphasis and thought into things that would not normally be enough on their own to inspire people to use a recall. I actually think it wouldn't be crazy if were willing to use the recall more, in the sense that when our standards and expectations change for how people do their jobs, we should apply that standard to the people in office. Recall is on the table when someone is abusing their office, is chronically not performing their duties, is incapable or unwilling to do their job, in short, is clearly not up to the job and not doing it, or a clearly bad actor. That's obvious. But there's a spectrum of good reasons beneath those, things that we can consider just as carefully and responsibly, and we don't consider this mechanism for those things. Maybe we should. In practice I think we don't most of the time because terms in office are reasonable and elections can often handle our concerns if they rise to a level we might contemplate a recall. This is indirect in the case of ministers, obviously, but the point is that SC members don't have that potential release valve by virtue of their "permanent" position. If people don't accept the logic, if they are not willing to apply the same high standard you clearly have for SC members, then these reappointment votes will be routine and foregone conclusions. More work for the RA, sleepy predictable affairs. The release valve will exist, however. We can see how this can be abused, but we can also see how the responsible, strict standard for recall can also be abused to shield people by virtue of how difficult and uncommon it is. Normalizing recall for less glaring reasons but that are still sober, responsible, and measured, would mitigate that as well, but that kind of cultural shift takes time.
Fiji's suggestion that you force a recall discussion doesn't seem right to me. I agree with the underlying point, which is that recall is still the best and most appropriate method to handle SC members who fall short (and the RA decides whether the case is strong enough to warrant its use). But I do not like the idea that we force a discussion on a recall, because if a recall is being debated, it is because someone feels that an official must be removed for whatever reasons they lay out. As a starting point it has us thinking in a judgmental, negative way, and outright means that on some level, someone thinks someone has done wrong. Your proposal, to have regular reappointment, is neutral in intention and simply demands a discussion, but has the potential for removing someone from office more easily than a recall, and only for this type of official. I understand that, say, a delegate can be re-elected or not with a majority, but while they are in office it takes more than that to remove them, and in the case of a minister, it is the only way that can be done by the RA. So we would say it is harder to remove a minister in a vote of the RA than it is to remove a member of the SC? A good blend of these ideas, I think, would be for you to raise the voting requirement to a 2/3 majority so that it matches that of a recall. While I do believe recalls could be utilized more often, because of all the baggage and connotations inherent with them, and because of the unique nature of the Security Council, simply changing the frame to be that of an evaluation is I think a defensible approach. An SC member who loses such a vote is going to be removed from the SC, which is no different from a recall. The reasons to do so could just as easily have been argued in a recall vote. And yet, not every official is evaluated from the assumption that failing the evaluation means they get removed from office, and that the possibility of their removal is on the table from the very start and they must survive the vote to avoid it. So if this happens, I think it makes sense that it be a 2/3 majority vote.
I'll echo this:
I imagine one criteria that may not be considered is whether someone is trustworthy enough to join the SC (unless someone voted against them earlier due to that and would then have a chance to reconsider and switch their nay vote to an aye). New information which I think would now be taken into consideration is what were the results of any discussion surrounding the last reappointment and whether they were appropriately addressed in the time since then (eg. say concerns have been raised about the amount of endotarting done, this could be re-evaluated in another six months). I think the "new" criteria that would be looked at during reappointments would be what sort of engagement that Security Councillor has had with the region over the past while. Information which would be viewed is that I frequently see citizens wanting more than just a warm body being a SCer, that there's something extra so to say. Whether that information is still relevant is something that I reviewed (eg. was something qualified to join the SC because they were active and engaged on the RMB despite little activity on Discord)? Has that changed noticeably in that we are concerned that they are not engaged with the rest of the region? Obviously, different citizens will have different standards on what is concerning or not, however, this would provide a regular venue for those concerns to be raised and addressed. 
