However, they were not jurists and they were convinced to act in the best interest of their organisation

When David Levy was faced with 17 petitioners -did he act in the best interest of the ICGA. Exactly, what would have been in the best interest of the organisation knowing the potential it was then facing?

The issue raised a potential  polarizing effect upon the entire computer chess community.

Placed an antithetical situation between the petitioners and Vas -polarizing both sides -leaving  no advantage for a dialogue to take place-in short putting in place a mob disposition.

So what would be the most advantageous avenue of approach for Dr. Levy to take?

Let the petitioners know that their petition is under serious consideration,

That it must be processed,  with Vas informed of its content.

Letting the petitioners know that the  ICGA must first decide on how it  will respond  and that it will confer with both parties first on a  separate bases- then together to ratify an agreement of approach on what will be the  next step to be taken if any is to be taken!   

But, that wasn't the case-

Levy's intention was not to give any quarter to Vas.  Levy set up the inquisitional process- polarizing both the  petitioners and Vas

Making sure that an  adversarial environment was  established right from the get go.

That was in the best interest of the ICGA as he saw it.

You can go after Bob until the proverbial cows come home and nothing will come of it. Levy is the guy who set this whole charade up and it really falls on him. Including rule changes. But he's too much of a coward to come on to the Rybka forum and face the issues. Instead he has Bob do it for him.

addendum:

And by the way - Levy knows fool well that  Bob is not an empowered person!

I have only one more thing to say!

David Levy -we could made such lovely harmonies  had you been a righteous dude!