Re: [Eligibility-discuss] Questions about I* bodies removing their own membership

[John C Klensin <[e-mail]>]

--On Wednesday, October 30, 2019 08:34 -0700 S Moonesamy
<[e-mail]> wrote:

>...
> Returning the person who has been recalled requires the
> approval of both a future Nomcom and the confirming body.  My
> current thinking is that it is not worth figuring that one out.

Actually, unless I have misunderstood the procedures, the
sequence for a removal is 

(1) Petition is submitted to ISOC CEO (or, in the case of the
Ombudsteam, a request goes to the ISOC CEO without a petition).

(2) ISOC CEO appoints recall committee chair, who organizes and
runs the request for volunteers and random selection process for
recall committee members.

(3) Recall committee figures out if the person should be
removed.  If they reach a "yes" decision, the person is out,
creating a vacancy.

(4) The vacancy is filled, as quickly as possible, by the
relevant nomcom.  Depending on when the person recalled was
selected and the timing of the removal action, that might well
be the same nomcom that originally selected the person who was
just removed.  

If it happens to be that same nomcom and their conclusion is
that, independent of the recall committee's conclusions and
whatever the petition has to say, they were right the first
time, nothing prevents them from reappointing the same person to
fill his or her own vacancy.   For many reasons, including my
not being paranoid enough to imagine a nomcom behaving that way,
I think the odds of that occurring are small enough that I can
agree with you that this is probably not worth figuring out.  I
can imagine, but only with difficulty, someone who was recalled
wanting the job back.  But it is not an issue about a "future
nomcom" -- for two year terms, it would be either the nomcom
that seated the person who was recalled or the sitting one after
it.   

It was pointed out to me last night that there is one exception
worth worrying about but probably not in the current context.
At least for the IESG, we've had occasions in which the number
of volunteers/ candidates for a given slot has been very small,
perhaps only one.  If the recalled person was the only plausible
one who volunteered for that slot and no further volunteers are
found with to fill the vacancy, the nomcom might be faced with a
question that has been raised on and off for years but never
answered:  Given a choice between an unsatisfactory candidate
and a decision to not fill the position and, presumably,
strongly advise the IESG to rethink into organizational, area
definition, and AD structure, it has never been clear whether a
nomcom has the option of leaving the position unfilled.   But
that issue is very clearly out of scope for this discussion even
if we expanded to overhaul the whole recall procedure.

best,
   john