David Morris wrote: > > John Levine wrote: > > > > >I agree with you that removing him would be the simplest approach, but I > > >can see possible situations where NOT following the process could lead > > >us into legal trouble. > > > > Anyone can sue in the US for any reason, but this is silly. > > > > The IAOC made extensive attempts to contact him in many ways, with > > zero response. No court I know would find it unreasonable to assume > > that he's no longer interested. > > The legal issue raised by a previous reply that resonates with me is > that someone unsatisfied with a business decision by the adjusted > IAOC membership could sue based on documented process not being > followed to appoint the membership. > > > I certainly hope that this sort of situation does not recur, but it > > seems perfectly reasonable in view of the facts to let the IAOC > > proceed as though he's resigned. > > Yeah, except establishing new process and applying it retroactively > could be an issue. A new removal process could be defined and accepted > by the IETF's normal process, but the clock would have to start with > approval of the new process. I believe you're blowing the (in)significance of "someone unsatisfied with a business decision" out of proportion. But actually, discussing the recall procedure _now_ looks like barking up the _wrong_ tree to me. The IAOC says it is currently understaffed to do its work. So what the IAOC needs quickly is another (at least temporary) _active_ membership. Whether or not Marshall remains an (inactive) member of the IAOC may be academically interesting, and a topic of discussion to augment the procedures for the future, but appears less relevant for the IAOC in trying to get its work done. Doing an extended last call to augment the IAOC membership by one addidional _active_ seat up to the end of Marshalls term should be possible as an ad-hoc interim measure to address a specific current resource shortage. Adjusting the procedures is a secondary issue. -Martin