Re: [802SEC] +++URGEN*T EC Email Ballot approve expenditure of $68.7k to upgrade the network+++
Paul ... See my previous e-mail where I seconded the motion in response to
John's message.
Since time is of the essence, I suggest that unless anyone objects to the
change in the "seconder" that you continue to tally votes.
(The question was place to the body by the Chair (you) in good faith ...)
Carl
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Paul Nikolich [mailto:paul.nikolich@ATT.NET]
> Sent: Friday, February 24, 2006 7:13 PM
> To: STDS-802-SEC@listserv.ieee.org
> Subject: Re: [802SEC] +++URGEN*T EC Email Ballot approve
> expenditure of $68.7k to upgrade the network+++
>
> John,
>
> I apologize for starting the ballot without explicit
> confirmation of your second. My mistake.
>
> I am cancelling the email ballot and will start it only upon
> receiving an indication from an EC member they are willing to
> second the motion.
>
> Regards,
>
> --Paul
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "John Hawkins" <jhawkins@NORTEL.COM>
> To: <STDS-802-SEC@listserv.ieee.org>
> Sent: Friday, February 24, 2006 6:59 PM
> Subject: Re: [802SEC] +++URGEN*T EC Email Ballot approve
> expenditure of $68.7k to upgrade the network+++
>
>
> > Folks,
> >
> > I have indeed reviewed the proposal submitted by Buzz. I understood
> > its content and context. I did not, however, agree to second the
> > motion, and doing so puts me in an awkward position with
> the folks who
> > generously send me a paycheck on alternating Fridays.
> >
> > Therefore, I must ask that my name be removed from the motion as
> > seconder, and I wish to recuse myself from this matter. This should
> > not be construed as opposition, but I feel I must recuse
> myself based
> > on the implicit vendor selection in the motion.
> >
> > As your Treasurer I can say a few things that might help in your
> > deliberation:
> >
> > 1. Thanks in large part to the increased fees for our plenary
> > sessions, IEEE 802 does have the funds for this expenditure.
> > 2. Based on what I've been informed by Buzz and VeriLan, I
> believe due
> > diligence was carried out to secure reasonable terms for
> this proposal.
> > I am told alternatives were considered. The assessment of required
> > functionality, and evaluation of risks for various
> alternatives, was
> > conducted by VeriLan and their recommendation is captured in the
> > motion before you today.
> > 3. It was my belief that sales taxes would not be a issue since we
> > were using VeriLan as our agent for this transaction and
> that they are
> > based in a state that does not collect such taxes.
> >
> > I apologize to the Chair, to Buzz and to the group if my initial
> > indication that I understood the proposal implied I was willing to
> > second it.
> >
> > john
> >
> >
> > -- snip snip
> >
> > ----------
> > This email is sent from the 802 Executive Committee email
> reflector.
> > This list is maintained by Listserv.
>
> ----------
> This email is sent from the 802 Executive Committee email
> reflector. This list is maintained by Listserv.
>
>
----------
This email is sent from the 802 Executive Committee email reflector. This list is maintained by Listserv.