On 10/23/12 4:25 PM, Bob Hinden wrote:
Responding to some of the discussion, I would like to raise a few points.
I don't see how the IAOC has bypassed any rules. We are asking the community
if it is OK to declare Marshall's position vacant. Bypassing the rules would
be true if the IAOC had gone ahead unilaterally and asked the NomCom to fill
the reminder of Marshall's term. The community consensus will determine the
answer to the query.
We think the current procedures were not meant for this case and are not clear
on the situation when to declare a position vacant.
BCP101 says:
Any appointed IAOC member, including any appointed
by the IAB, IESG, or ISOC Board of Trustees, may be recalled using
the recall procedure defined in RFC 3777.
The use of "may" usually means do this unless there is good reason to do
otherwise. I think that is the case in this situation.
The IAOC has operational responsibilities. Having one voting member not
attending many meetings makes it harder obtaining a consensus. Without a
consensus the IAOC can not approve contracts, RFPs, etc.
Lastly, and I think most important, the IAOC proposed this approach because we
think it would cause the least amount of embarrassment to Marshall. Marshall
has been active in the IETF for many years and has made many important
contributions. We proposed this course of action in respect to Marshall. We
think it's better to not subject him to the formal RFC3777 recall process.
Having his position declared vacant is milder than having him be formally
recalled.
The result of a 3777 process is theoretically not subject to appeal.
which has a certainly finality on completion that I don't think this
proposal has. I don't think the proposal is bad, but I don't think it is
a generically appropriate approach.
Bob
