--On Wednesday, 22 December, 2004 15:50 -0500 avri(_at_)psg(_dot_)com wrote:
In general I like this formulation with the following comments:
editorial: 'non-conflicted' bothers me as a term. I
recommend something like
... a majority of the IAOC who are available and who do not
need to recuse themselves from the vote. IAOC votes can be
taken in person, by teleconference, or by email.
I was trying to write in shorthand. I prefer your choice of
words.
As for the <condition> I would recommend using a quorum rule.
e.g. a majority of members.
That would be my instinct as well, just because it is simple.
I mentioned the other possibility only because someone had
expressed concern about a decision being made that didn't
involve approval of any of the IETF leadership. If that
concerned others to a sufficient degree, my point was that it
wouldn't be hard to write a rule that would significantly reduce
the perceived risk.
john
On 22 dec 2004, at 15.19, John C Klensin wrote:
IAOC decisions are taken by a majority of the
non-conflicted IAOC members who are available to vote in
person, by teleconference, or by email. However, except
in an emergency situation, no decision may be taken with
less than <condition> of the IAOC available to vote.
Declaration of an emergency requires a 2/3 majority of
the IAOC members available to vote after all members
have been notified of the possibility of that action.
Of course, the "emergency" provision, and the assumption that
people who had conflicts with the substantive matter would not
need to recuse themselves in a vote to declare an emergency,
could be abused. But abuse of that variety would, I hope, be
a more than sufficient condition for a speedy recall action.
"<condition>" could be as simple as "three" or as complicated
as some requirement that at least one person appointed by the
IETF be included on the majority side.
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf