a) To my reading RFC 3777 only deals with IAB and IESG membership
RFC 4071 (BCP 101) specifies use of the 3777 recall process for the IAOC.
b) Neither this draft nor 3777 defines 'IETF body'
Simply making Section 3.1 say 'the IAB, IESG, or IAOC ("an IETF body")' will take care of that.
c) Consindering that someone would be a member until removed, and
assuming IAOC is meant to be considered an IETF body, 2/3 of
members approving could be sticky at some point if 2/3 of
the members aren't available to vote.
I presume you mean, "if there aren't 2/3 of the members available to vote." Yes, well, true. But then there's always the recall process to fall back on.
d) We need a better definition of 'sustained' absence ... e.g.,
a minimum period of time, number of regularily scheduled
'meetings' missed, no response to queries.
e) "Multiple different queries" ... needs more precision as it
is satisfied as stated by 2 emails sent at the same time to
the same destination. This section may require an adjustment
to the sort of contact information required for each position
covered by this process.
Both of these are handled by giving the IETF body some judgment, counterbalanced by the ability to contest it. If the judgment is uncontested, we're fine. If it is contested, then we go back to the recall process. I think that's a fine approach, and would NOT like to overspecify this.
Barry