>i read and understand it as you state...  the person as IC must 
>be or have been a ZC... there is nothing that states that they 
>must remain a ZC to be the IC if they are a current ZC...

 RW> This I think may be the oppositions point. Judging from the wording
 RW> in policy, there may not be anything that says they must remain a
 RW> ZC, but the expectation from the language used indicates to some
 RW> that they must.

interesting... no wonder "they" want everything spelled out right
down to the letter... what's that old phrase? everything is allowed except
what specifically isn't? something like that ;)

 RW> It would therefore all be in the interpretation of the then sitting
 RW> IC. 

oh, now that's interesting... no wonder everything has gotten all screwed
up since the last IC got put under that particular hat... hopefully the
current one can undo some of that misunderstanding O:)

 RW> Since Satti was the sitting IC when he made the decision to resign
 RW> his ZC hat, in making that determination it became part of the
 RW> operational procedures in the ZCC.

true...

 RW> However it may not have stayed in effect with the election of the 
 RW> next IC. 

you'd think that some sort of statement to that effect would have been
issued, then... oh yeah, this is a hobby so there's no of that use of those
types of rules and such ;(

 RW> Satti, being a co-author of policy, may have had some insight from
 RW> previous discussion among the authors in this regard.

i'm absolutely positive about that...

)\/(ark