RE: [802SEC] 802.20 appeal panel action: plan for EC action
Paul,
I don't believe that step zero is supportable under our P&P. Section
3.2 on LMSC Membership states:
"Executive Committee membership, including all rights and
responsibilities thereof, is acquired by Working Group/Technical
Advisory Group Chairs upon appointment to the position of Chair of a
Working Group/Technical Advisory Group and confirmed by the members of
the Working Group/Technical Advisory Group, ..."
And section 3.1 b) on LMSC Function states:
"b) Appoint the initial Chairs of the Working Groups and Technical
Advisory Groups. (The Chairs of Working Groups and Technical Advisory
Groups are confirmed or elected by the Working Group and Technical
Advisory Group members themselves.)"
This is a clear statement that the WG chairs are officially chairs of
their WGs upon EC confirmation. I do not find any support for delay in
taking their offices. Any motion that would appear to address this
portion of the P&P would have to be treated as either a motion to change
the P&P (with all its attendant process and delay) or must be out of
order (as the P&P of an organization cannot be modified or set aside by
a simple motion).
-Bob
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-stds-802-sec@majordomo.ieee.org
[mailto:owner-stds-802-sec@majordomo.ieee.org] On Behalf Of Paul
Nikolich
Sent: Friday, November 07, 2003 1:07 PM
To: Mike Takefman; Roger B. Marks
Cc: Paul Nikolich; stds-802-sec@ieee.org; jerry1upton@aol.com;
pittampalli@lucent.com; wu@docomolabs-usa.com; k.rupp@ieee.org; 'Carlo,
Jim TI'
Subject: [802SEC] 802.20 appeal panel action: plan for EC action
Dear EC,
The voting process was developed by a group from 802 (me and Geoff),
IEEE-SA
volunteer leadership (Jim Carlo) and staff (Karen Rupp.) The goal of
the
voting process is to comply with the direction given by the SAB appeal
panel.
My answers to BobO, Carl, Mike and Roger's questions/suggestions:
0) some members of the EC have recommended that confirmed officers take
office immediately (as opposed to the end of the session). I recommend
a
formal motion/decision be made by the EC on this point before the
confirmation votes.
1) any non-confirmation vote that does not have a rationale attached
will
not be counted
2) it is up to the voter to decide how to accompany their rationale with
their vote for non-confirmation. A valid ballot must contain an
unambigous
vote (yes/no/abstain). A valid non-confirmation vote must include a
rationale that can be read by the tally taker. (Mike, to your point
about
"I agree with what Mr. X said...etc."--the process cannot cover every
possible permutation of outcome--I expect the EC members to make every
effort to ensure each vote is valid)
3) I expect to follow a process as follows: a motion will be made and
seconded to confirm a candidate, the candidate will be invited to give a
statement on their behalf (no more than 2 minutes), the EC will be given
5
minutes for Q&A&discusssion, the EC members submit their vote via paper
ballot, an IEEE-staff member will tally the ballots and announce the
result
(3 minutes).
4) if an officer is not confirmed, the non-confirmation rationale(s)
will be
given to the recording secy to be entered into the minutes.
I hope this clears up the questions.
--Regards,
--Paul
----- Original Message -----
From: "Mike Takefman" <tak@cisco.com>
To: "Roger B. Marks" <r.b.marks@ieee.org>
Cc: "Paul Nikolich" <p.nikolich@ieee.org>; <stds-802-sec@ieee.org>;
<jerry1upton@aol.com>; <pittampalli@lucent.com>; <wu@docomolabs-usa.com>
Sent: Friday, November 07, 2003 2:45 PM
Subject: Re: [802SEC] 802.20 appeal panel action: plan for EC action
>
> Paul,
>
> Carrying on to Roger's point. Is the expectation
> that someone would write out this rationale
> on each ballot, or should they come prepared
> with the rationale and staple it to the ballot?
>
> Is there to be discussion of people's positions
> prior to the vote? It would appear that the secret
> ballot with "sealed" rationale implies that
> no discussion is acceptable.
>
> If discussion is acceptable and will occur, then
> is an acceptable rationale "I agree with what
> Mr. X said". If so, what if Mr. X does not write
> that rationale onto his ballot?
>
> An addendum to Roger's question, I want also
> know what the goals were that drove this particular
> voting process?
>
> thanks,
>
> mike
>
> Roger B. Marks wrote:
> >
> > Paul,
> >
> > I'm thinking through the process to see if it is bullet-proof. I've
come
> > up with one issue:
> >
> > *Regarding "Each non-confirmation vote must be accompanied by the
> > rationale for the vote", what if it isn't? Is the vote disqualified?
> > This could be considered implied in the statement, but I think we
should
> > be clear in advance. I propose that it be disqualified and not
counted
> > as a vote cast.
> >
> > I'm also wondering, more generally, who has decided on this
particular
> > ballot mechanism? Was it an IEEE-SA team effort?
> >
> > Roger
> >
> >
> > At 18:08 -0500 03/11/06, Paul Nikolich wrote:
> >
> >> Dear EC members,
> >>
> >> This note is intended to clarify the responsibliies and
> >> indemnification rights of EC members regarding the 802.20 appeal
panel
> >> action. It also defines a process to implement the CS-SAB appeal
panel
> >> action.
> >>
> >> 1) Geoff and I did not fully agree with with the appeal panel
findings
> >> and actions and asked the IEEE-SA if we (and the EC) could get
support
> >> to appeal the appeal. We were notifyied that, as officers of 802,
> >> we, nor any EC member, can appeal the panel's findings or action.
The
> >> EC simply must implement the action. This directive was unexpected
by
> >> me, hence may be unexpected by other members of the EC. If you
> >> require a more detailed, in depth explanation, you must discuss it
> >> directly with Judy Gorman.
> >>
> >> 2) As a result of the directive in (1) above, the EC shall hold a
> >> separate reconfirmation vote for each candidate.
> >> 3) The current slate of opening EC agenda items is scheduled to be
> >> complete at 10AM. I will place confirmation votes on the opening
EC
> >> meeting agenda to start at 10AM, which give us 30 minutes to
complete
> >> this as the last items on the agenda, (10 minutes per candidate.)
> >>
> >> 4) To comply with the appeal panel direction to document the
rationale
> >> for non-confirmation, the vote will be conducted via secret paper
> >> ballot. Each non-confirmation vote must be accompanied by the
> >> rationale for the vote. The ballot's will be tallied by an IEEE
staff
> >> person (probably Karen Kinne). If the candidate is confirmed, the
> >> ballots will be destroyed. If the candidate is not confirmed each
> >> non-confirmation vote rationale will be entered into the minutes
> >> verbatim. If confirmed, the candidates take office at the end
of
> >> the plenary session, as per the customary process followed in 802.
> >>
> >> 5) Given that the EC must hold a re-confirmation vote, and the
outcome
> >> may be subject to appeal yet again, I wanted be sure the EC
members
> >> are indemnified by the IEEE-SA. To that end, I requested the SA
> >> management unambigously define the terms and conditions under which
> >> the EC members will be indemnified. This is to ensure the EC
members
> >> fully understand any risks and liabilities associated with their
> >> participation in the re-confirmation vote. The response from IEEE
> >> management is copied below.
> >>
> >> I believe the above points address the bulk of the concerns I am
aware
> >> of and is the best and proper way to move forward on this matter.
> >>
> >> Regards,
> >>
> >> --Paul Nikolich
> >> Chairman, IEEE 802
> >>
> >> "----- Original Message -----
> >> From: <<mailto:j.gorman@ieee.org>j.gorman@ieee.org>
> >> To:
> >>
<<mailto:Paul.nikolich@worldnet.att.net>Paul.nikolich@worldnet.att.net>
> >> Cc: <<mailto:k.rupp@ieee.org>k.rupp@ieee.org>;
> >> <<mailto:don@lexmark.com>don@lexmark.com>;
> >> <<mailto:j.carlo@ieee.org>j.carlo@ieee.org>;
> >> <<mailto:ghpeterson@ieee.org>ghpeterson@ieee.org>;
> >> <<mailto:bjohnson@thermon.com>bjohnson@thermon.com>;
> >> <<mailto:deese.pamela@dorsey.com>deese.pamela@dorsey.com>
> >> Sent: Thursday, November 06, 2003 1:30 PM
> >> Subject: Indemnification wrt IEEE P802.20 activity
> >>
> >>> Paul,
> >>
> >> > Below please find an answer to your question about
indemnification.
> >>
> >>>
> >>> The members of the 802 SEC are indemnified as long as they follow
the
> >>> rules. Further, while their discretion and care in how they
> >>> formulate their
> >>> rationales are matters of personal preference, if they want to
> >>> avoid any
> >>
> >> > questions about indemnification, they should probably be very
> >> factual and
> >>
> >>> not subjective in the way they craft their rationales. IEEE in
the
end
> >>> makes choices about who and how much to insure. That is done by
the
> >>> IEEE
> >>
> >> > Insurance Committee in concert with the Executive Committee.
Bottom
> >> line:
> >>
> >>> no one is absolutely assured of full (meaning "insured through
to
> >>> the end
> >>> of the issue and its resolution") indemnification, even if he or
she
is
> >>> following all the rules and behaving completely ethically and
> >>> perfectly. To
> >>> further clarify the matter of indemnification, if the SEC, in
> >>> failing to
> >>> confirm all or part of the slate of officers, acts in an
arbitrary,
> >>> illegal, or potentially defamatory fashion, indemnification would
be
> >>> questionable. As officers, it is anticipated that they will
carry
out
> >>> their duties responsibly and rationally. These duties include
> >>> whether or
> >>> not to confirm a slate of officers, and their decision must be
> >>> rational and
> >>> not arbitrary, illegal, or defamatory.
> >>> I hope this helps.
> >>>
> >>> Best,
> >>> Judy
> >>
> >
>
>
> --
> Michael Takefman tak@cisco.com
> Distinguished Engineer, Cisco Systems
> Chair IEEE 802.17 Stds WG
> 3000 Innovation Dr, Ottawa, Canada, K2K 3E8
> voice: 613-254-3399 cell:613-220-6991
>