Re: don't overthink, was Just so I'm clear

[David Morris <[e-mail]>]

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 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.