RE: [802SEC] 802.20 appeal panel action: plan for EC action
Bob,
I agree with you that 5.1.2 doesn't apply, but with somewhat
different reasoning.
I think that Paul was suggesting that 5.1.2 might require that his
temporary appointment of Gary must extend through the end of next
week's Plenary.
However, 5.1.2 applies only to "Initial appointments, and temporary
appointments to fill
vacancies due to resignations." So it doesn't technically apply here.
Also, the difference between this case and those cases is more than
just a technicality. After all, in the 5.1.2 cases, the temporary
officers serve during the session because the newly-elected officers
are not yet confirmed. The situation will be completely different for
any officers confirmed on Monday.
Roger
At 14:48 -0800 03/11/07, Bob O'Hara wrote:
>Paul,
>
>I do not believe that 5.1.2 applies in this situation. You are not
>making either an initial or temporary appointment of a WG chair. You
>have already done that with Gary Robinson. The current situation is the
>confirmation of WG chairs duly elected by their WG.
>
> -Bob
>
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Paul Nikolich [mailto:paul.nikolich@att.net]
>Sent: Friday, November 07, 2003 2:16 PM
>To: Bob O'Hara; stds-802-sec@ieee.org
>Cc: jerry1upton@aol.com; pittampalli@lucent.com; wu@docomolabs-usa.com;
>k.rupp@ieee.org; Carlo, Jim TI
>Subject: Re: [802SEC] 802.20 appeal panel action: plan for EC action
>
>
>Bob,
>
>Thank you for your input. I/we need your interpretation on rule 5.1.2
>which states "Initial appointments, and temporary appointments to fill
>vacancies due to resignations or removals for cause, may be made by the
>Chair of the LMSC, and shall be valid until the end of the next Plenary
>session". How should this apparent conflict with the interpretation
>below
>be handled?
>
>Regards,
>
>--Paul
>
>----- Original Message -----
>From: "Bob O'Hara" <bob@airespace.com>
>To: <stds-802-sec@ieee.org>
>Cc: <jerry1upton@aol.com>; <pittampalli@lucent.com>;
><wu@docomolabs-usa.com>; <k.rupp@ieee.org>; "Carlo, Jim TI"
><j.carlo@ieee.org>
>Sent: Friday, November 07, 2003 4:53 PM
>Subject: 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
>> >
>>
>>