Subject: Suggested resolution - #826: Section 4 - Removal of the IAOC Chair

From: Harald Tveit Alvestrand <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 28 Jan 2005 10:10:37 +0100

Russ raised the issue that 2/3 majority to remove an IAOC chair seems a bit 
excessive, considering that this requires 6 votes out of 8, with the chair 
being one of the 8. So the chair + 2 others could hold on to the chair 
position.

Scott mentioned that removing a chair is serious, so we should make sure we 
don't get into the "decision at a meeting with few people present" problem, 
and talked about email voting.

Suggested change:
Old text (from section 4):

   The Chair serves at the pleasure of the IAOC, and may be removed from
   that position at any time by a two thirds vote of the voting
   membership of the IAOC.

New text:

   The Chair serves at the pleasure of the IAOC, and may be removed from
   that position at any time by a vote of five of the IAOC voting members.

If people disagree with Russ, and think that we SHOULD require six votes, 
that's easily accomplished:

   The Chair serves at the pleasure of the IAOC, and may be removed from
   that position at any time by a vote of six of the IAOC voting members.

I don't think that this is a show-stopper issue no matter what the 
resolution is, but it's nice to have it nailed.

                         Harald

_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

---

From: [email-masked]
Date: Fri, 28 Jan 2005 08:21:31 -0500

I don't think it is a showstopper and don't think that removing the 
IAOC char should require a super majority.  If the chair serves at the 
pleasure of the IAOC then the chair should be easily replaceable by the 
IAOC.  I do agree, however, that it should take a majority of the 
members and not a majority of those present at a meeting to remove the 
chair.

a.

On 28 jan 2005, at 04.10, Harald Tveit Alvestrand wrote:

> Russ raised the issue that 2/3 majority to remove an IAOC chair seems 
> a bit excessive, considering that this requires 6 votes out of 8, with 
> the chair being one of the 8. So the chair + 2 others could hold on to 
> the chair position.
>
> Scott mentioned that removing a chair is serious, so we should make 
> sure we don't get into the "decision at a meeting with few people 
> present" problem, and talked about email voting.
>
> Suggested change:
> If people disagree with Russ, and think that we SHOULD require six 
> votes, that's easily accomplished:
>