On Fri, 26 Oct 2012, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
Actually I haven't seen that. I've seen people assert that our process
doesn't document the case of a non-responsive absentee member, but I
haven't seen anyone deny that we have an empty seat.
I don't believe the seat is vacant or empty. Without
On 25/10/2012 19:40, Doug Barton wrote:
On 10/25/2012 12:46 AM, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
On 24/10/2012 20:34, Doug Barton wrote:
...
... Nothing in the text suggests an
unfettered right of creating new definitions of vacant.
You mean, new compared to the first definition in
On 10/26/2012 12:20 AM, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
On 25/10/2012 19:40, Doug Barton wrote:
On 10/25/2012 12:46 AM, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
On 24/10/2012 20:34, Doug Barton wrote: ...
... Nothing in the text suggests an unfettered right of
creating new definitions of vacant.
You mean, new
On Oct 25, 2012, at 1:25 AM, Martin Rex wrote:
Doug Barton wrote:
Andrew Sullivan wrote:
Let me get this straight: for the sake of procedures that are clearly
designed to be hard to use,
While I think that 3777 probably errs on the side of too hard to use,
recalling someone from one
On 24/10/2012 20:34, Doug Barton wrote:
...
... Nothing in the text suggests an
unfettered right of creating new definitions of vacant.
You mean, new compared to the first definition in Merriam-Webster.com?
1: not occupied by an incumbent, possessor, or officer a vacant office
vacant thrones
: Just so I'm clear
On 24/10/2012 20:34, Doug Barton wrote:
...
... Nothing in the text suggests an
unfettered right of creating new definitions of vacant.
You mean, new compared to the first definition in Merriam-Webster.com?
1: not occupied by an incumbent, possessor, or officer
On 10/25/2012 12:46 AM, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
On 24/10/2012 20:34, Doug Barton wrote:
...
... Nothing in the text suggests an
unfettered right of creating new definitions of vacant.
You mean, new compared to the first definition in Merriam-Webster.com?
1: not occupied by an incumbent,
At 03:46 AM 10/25/2012, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
On 24/10/2012 20:34, Doug Barton wrote:
...
... Nothing in the text suggests an
unfettered right of creating new definitions of vacant.
You mean, new compared to the first definition in Merriam-Webster.com?
1: not occupied by an incumbent,
On 10/25/12 12:56 PM, Michael StJohns wrote:
To put a very specific point on this - in the real world, people get
shot, or are other wise hurt and end up in coma's and are otherwise
unable to fulfill the responsibilities of their office, and unless
and until they resign from office or are
At 05:08 PM 10/25/2012, Melinda Shore wrote:
don't think that these are in any way analogous, since in each
case that you mentioned the individual who left was either incapacitated
or had pre-arranged an absence. If someone simply disappeared from
work without notice or comment I expect it would
I'm convinced the IAOC needs to be restored to full membership and I'm not
convinced we need to bypass our existing recall process. I would prefer that
we exercise that process, but will accede to whatever process is judged to have
consensus.
- Ralph
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
On 10/24/2012 5:49 AM, Margaret Wasserman wrote:
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
Doug Barton wrote:
Andrew Sullivan wrote:
Let me get this straight: for the sake of procedures that are clearly
designed to be hard to use,
While I think that 3777 probably errs on the side of too hard to use,
recalling someone from one of these positions _should_ be hard to do,
and
In message ea9bea2e-ee96-4e80-b719-652bbd620...@lilacglade.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
On 10/23/2012 8:47 PM, Andrew Sullivan wrote:
Let me get this straight: for the sake of procedures that are clearly
designed to be hard to use,
While I think that 3777 probably errs on the side of too hard to use,
recalling someone from one of these positions _should_ be hard to do,
and should
On 10/24/12 6:23 AM, Doug Barton wrote:
With respect, you haven't spent much time with either the ITU or ICANN
if you think that 3777 is rigidly bureaucratic by their standards.
This is one of those situations where we have to take our medicine. Doug
There are actually very few ITU rules,
On 10/23/2012 9:51 PM, Eliot Lear wrote:
On 10/24/12 6:23 AM, Doug Barton wrote:
With respect, you haven't spent much time with either the ITU or ICANN
if you think that 3777 is rigidly bureaucratic by their standards.
This is one of those situations where we have to take our medicine. Doug
On 10/23/12 8:51 PM, Eliot Lear wrote:
There are actually very few ITU rules, and very many guidelines. The
latter are the exact opposite of rigid, but subject to overturning by
Member States at any time. I had thought that we were roughly the same
in that regard, so as to avoid a
From: Doug Barton do...@dougbarton.us
recalling someone from one of these positions _should_ be hard to do,
and should not be undertaken lightly.
No disagreement there - but we're not trying to recall him because of actions
he took, things he said, etc, etc.
Like I said, I think
Yes but -
The process you refer to deals with temporary incapacity where the office
holder might not want to go away for a while. And even then there's a process
and a defined group of people who run that process. (cf 25th amendment).
I agree with you that removing him would be the
21 matches
Mail list logo
