In message <EA9BEA2E-EE96-4E80-B719-652BBD620A79(_at_)lilacglade(_dot_)org>,
Margaret Wass
erman writes:
On Oct 24, 2012, at 1:01 AM, Doug Barton wrote:
I get what you're saying, but this is one of those times where (arguably
for the better) we've created a difficult procedure that should be
infrequently exercised. We should follow the procedure because it _is_
the procedure. And then use the opportunity to improve it.
The existence of the recall procedure does not imply that there isn't any
other way for a seat to become vacant. For example, a seat can become
vacant when an I* member resigns or dies, and there is no need for a
recall in those cases.
I think it is reasonable for the IAOC to set it's own (reasonable,
consistent) bar for deciding that a sitting member has vacated his/her
seat through lack of attendance and lack of response. No recall should
be needed in that case to replace the missing member, any more than if
the person had explicitly resigned. The IAOC sent a long list of things
that they have done to contact Marshall, and he has not responded. It
seems impossible that he has not received any of those contacts, so his
lack of response is indicative, IMO, that he has indeed vacated his seat.
But we don't have rules that say, "failure to attend for X period,
without permission, will result in the position being declared
vacant". I we did this would be simple. I don't think we have
any choice from a proceedural point of view other than to start
recall proceedings.
I share the hope of the IAOC and others that Marshall is okay, and that
he will return to the IETF when he can. I appreciate his contributions
throughout the years, and I would be happy to see him return to continue
making those contributions. For now, though, he has vacated his IAOC
seat and should be replaced.
Margaret
--
Mark Andrews, ISC
1 Seymour St., Dundas Valley, NSW 2117, Australia
PHONE: +61 2 9871 4742 INTERNET: marka(_at_)isc(_dot_)org