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. 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