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. Witho
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."
>>>
At 15:51 25-10-2012, Sam Hartman wrote:
2) IETF process documents require approval by the ISOC BOT.
Not really. The ISOC Board of Trustees is not in the loop when it
comes to IETF document approval.
3) There is a variance procedure. I've always been puzzled by it because
it seems to requir
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 Mer
> "Michael" == Michael StJohns writes:
Michael> At 08:53 AM 10/25/2012, Noel Chiappa wrote:
>> We're all agreed that the IETF in plenary mode (i.e. all of us)
>> can change any/all policy/procedures, right?
Michael> Actually, that's my point here.
Michael> Once upon a ti
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 wou
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 r
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 incum
At 08:53 AM 10/25/2012, Noel Chiappa wrote:
>We're all agreed that the IETF in plenary mode (i.e. all of us) can change
>any/all policy/procedures, right?
Actually, that's my point here.
Once upon a time, we did everything by group hum. Then we became a standards
body with formal procedures and
On 10/25/2012 1:26 PM, Noel Chiappa wrote:
>> From: Doug Barton
>
>> Removal from office _is_ considered a punitive action
Noel, you have a very bad habit of replying to snippets out of context.
Personally I don't appreciate it, as the snippet above could lead
someone to believe that what I said
> From: Doug Barton
> Removal from office _is_ considered a punitive action
Sorry all, but my bogometer just blew out.
He isn't being turfed out of his post (in a high-level sense); he quit.
He simply wasn't polite or thoughtful enough to do so formally, instead of by
just going catato
On 10/25/2012 12:34 PM, Carsten Bormann wrote:
> On Oct 25, 2012, at 21:20, Doug Barton wrote:
>
>> _punitive_
>
> Again, you are confused. This action is not about punishing an
> individual, and I would be violently opposed to it if it were.
Removal from office _is_ considered a punitive actio
On Oct 25, 2012, at 21:20, Doug Barton wrote:
> _punitive_
Again, you are confused.
This action is not about punishing an individual, and I would be violently
opposed to it if it were.
This is my last message on this.
I'm repulsed by the idea of discussing this under this premise.
Grüße, Ca
On 10/25/2012 12:21 PM, Melinda Shore wrote:
> On 10/25/12 11:13 AM, Doug Barton wrote:
>> First, I disagree with your belief that what you propose would not be
>> retroactive. Second, it's worth pointing out that if the IAOC put an
>> equal amount of effort into the recall procedure, the problem w
On 10/25/12 11:13 AM, Doug Barton wrote:
> First, I disagree with your belief that what you propose would not be
> retroactive. Second, it's worth pointing out that if the IAOC put an
> equal amount of effort into the recall procedure, the problem would be
> just as solved, without danger of reperc
On 10/25/2012 11:57 AM, Noel Chiappa wrote:
>> From: Doug Barton
>
>> When Marshall was appointed the rules we have now were in place. To
>> change the rules now, and then apply them to this situation is by
>> definition retroactive.
>
> By that logic, _any_ change to any rule involving, say, t
On 10/25/2012 12:05 PM, Carsten Bormann wrote:
> On Oct 25, 2012, at 20:52, Doug Barton wrote:
>
>> On 10/25/2012 9:57 AM, Carsten Bormann wrote:
>>> On Oct 25, 2012, at 16:37, "Adrian Farrel" wrote:
>>>
> retro-active
>>> I don't get how that is relevant.
>>> This is for the case the seat i
On Oct 25, 2012, at 20:52, Doug Barton wrote:
> On 10/25/2012 9:57 AM, Carsten Bormann wrote:
>> On Oct 25, 2012, at 16:37, "Adrian Farrel" wrote:
>>
retro-active
>> I don't get how that is relevant.
>> This is for the case the seat is still vacant when the new process comes
>> into force
On 10/25/12 10:57 AM, Noel Chiappa wrote:
> Otherwise you'll be changing the powers/etc that they had when they were
> seated - i.e. retroactive changes to their powers/etc.
I'm not seeing any movement in the discussion - it's probably time to
talk with an attorney.
Melinda
> From: Doug Barton
> When Marshall was appointed the rules we have now were in place.
> To change the rules now, and then apply them to this situation is by
> definition retroactive.
By that logic, _any_ change to any rule involving, say, the IESG (repeat for
all other I* bodie
On 10/25/2012 9:57 AM, Carsten Bormann wrote:
> On Oct 25, 2012, at 16:37, "Adrian Farrel" wrote:
>
>> > retro-active
> I don't get how that is relevant.
> This is for the case the seat is still vacant when the new process comes into
> force.
When Marshall was appointed the rules we have now we
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
On Oct 25, 2012, at 16:37, "Adrian Farrel" wrote:
> retro-active
I don't get how that is relevant.
This is for the case the seat is still vacant when the new process comes into
force.
I'm still amazed at the number of messages the resolution of this issue has
generated.
There is complete cons
Hi Noel,
At 05:53 25-10-2012, Noel Chiappa wrote:
We're all agreed that the IETF in plenary mode (i.e. all of us) can change
any/all policy/procedures, right?
It's going to be controversial.
So, view the original call from the IAOC as a request to the IETF, in formal
plenary mode, to make the
Cc: ietf@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: 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 definiti
y help the current situation.
Cheers,
Adrian
From: ietf-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:ietf-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Barry
Leiba
Sent: 25 October 2012 14:20
To: Noel Chiappa
Cc: ietf@ietf.org
Subject: Re: don't overthink, was Just so I'm clear
We're all agreed that the IETF in
> From: Barry Leiba
>> We're all agreed that the IETF in plenary mode (i.e. all of us) can
>> change any/all policy/procedures, right?
> Alas, that's not how we do things.
Wrong. That's exactly how we do things. Any piece of electronic paper you
point to to argue otherwise was
>
> We're all agreed that the IETF in plenary mode (i.e. all of us) can change
> any/all policy/procedures, right?
...
> So if people all hum to OK all that, it has _just as much legitimacy_ as
> _any other policy/procedure set into place by the IETF in plenary mode_.
>
Alas, that's not how we d
> From: David Morris
> someone unsatisfied with a business decision by the adjusted IAOC
> membership could sue based on documented process not being followed to
> appoint the membership.
Nothing can stop someone from filing a suit, no matter what you do (even if
you do follow pr
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
Objectively and factually
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,
>> recallin
>But we don't have rules that say, "failure to attend for X period,
>without permission, will result in the position being declared
>vacant". I we did this would be simple. I don't think we have
>any choice from a proceedural point of view other than to start
>recall proceedings.
Having reread R
In message , 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
> > infrequently exercised. We should follow the procedu
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
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
On Wed, 24 Oct 2012, John Levine wrote:
> >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.
>
> Are
>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.
Are you aware of any case law that suggests that any U.S. c
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 pro
On Wed, 24 Oct 2012, 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
>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, wit
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 Tue, Oct 23, 2012 at 05:47:48PM -0700, Doug Barton wrote:
>
> On 10/23/2012 2:32 PM, John Leslie wrote:
> > In other organizations, I have lived through longish periods of
> > uncertainty about the exact status of an individual, and I no longer
> > find it scary.
>
> I tend to agree, which is
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
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 simp
> From: Doug Barton
> 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 the US's federal
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 pervers
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
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 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 shoul
On Tue, Oct 23, 2012 at 05:47:48PM -0700, Doug Barton wrote:
>
> On 10/23/2012 2:32 PM, John Leslie wrote:
> > In other organizations, I have lived through longish periods of
> > uncertainty about the exact status of an individual, and I no longer
> > find it scary.
>
> I tend to agree, which is
50 matches
Mail list logo
