Re: [802SEC] +++un-conflicted EC motion #4 regarding 802.20+++determine Mark Klerer's unconflcted/conflicted classification+++need mover and seconder+++
Bob:
I'll hazard offering my recollection on the subject (likely compromised
by the passage of time).
The SASB excluded its (perceived) conflicted members for discussion and
action on 802.20 prior to the establishment of an unconflicted EC. My
recollection is that this first occurred in March 2006, though it could
have been in June 2006. In September 2006, the SASB heard presentations
on the activities and status of 802.20 with its report issued on 19 Sep
2006, which included suspension of the WG pending its reorganization.
I recall only verbal instructions on the process to determine
conflicted/unconflicted. Questions were asked by IEEE counsel related
to personal and employer/affiliation interest in 802.20/802.16
activities (participation of another individual from your affiliation
being defined as a perceived conflict). Those with a perceived conflict
were excluded from further discussion and action. The remaining members
then discussed and voted on each individual in executive session.
The clearly unconflicted members of the SASB made the decision on which
of the potentially conflicted members would be accepted as unconflicted.
Though we use the term conflicted, I do not believe any determination
was made that the individual was actually conflicted, rather that the
perception of conflict was significant enough for the individual to be
excluded. I believe the same applies to the EC.
The creation of the unconflicted EC process was similar. As I recall I
was the only EC member who's EC status was determined by the SASB
(having been determined as a conflicted SASB member, I was told I was
automatically a conflicted EC member). I don't know though if the EC
voted on my status specific to that assertion. I believe all others
classified as conflicted were by decision of fellow EC members.
The unconflicted SASB voted in March 2007 on which new members would be
unconflicted on 802.20. I believe Paul is properly following the
precedent of initial classification of members as well as the SASB
process for new members.
--Bob
-----Original Message-----
From: ***** IEEE 802 Executive Committee List *****
[mailto:STDS-802-SEC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG] On Behalf Of Bob O'Hara
Sent: Tuesday, April 29, 2008 10:59 AM
To: STDS-802-SEC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [802SEC] +++un-conflicted EC motion #4 regarding
802.20+++determine Mark Klerer's unconflcted/conflicted
classification+++need mover and seconder+++
Paul,
Not that I have any official voice in this discussion, but could you
recap for us exactly how the original members of the UC-EC were
identified and by whom they were identified? I don't recall a motion
and discussion of this nature taking place on the determination of the
original makeup of the UC-EC. Of course, it could just be the Percocet
interfering with my memory this morning. But, wasn't the original
determination made by the SASB, not the EC? Shouldn't they be
responsible for making the same determination with respect to Mark's
position?
-Bob
> -----Original Message-----
> From: ***** IEEE 802 Executive Committee List ***** [mailto:STDS-802-
> SEC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG] On Behalf Of Paul Nikolich
> Sent: Monday, April 21, 2008 9:22 AM
> To: STDS-802-SEC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
> Subject: Re: [802SEC] +++un-conflicted EC motion #4 regarding
> 802.20+++determine Mark Klerer's unconflcted/conflicted
> classification+++need mover and seconder+++
>
> Tony,
>
> We are in deep weeds for sure and I personally agree with your first
> recommendation. Unfortunately, the LMSC EC's request to SASB to
> dissolve the
> UC-EC in Nov2007 was denied. As I recall, the SASB response to our
> request
> was the UC-EC must stay in place until the 802.20 sponsor ballot is
> complete.
>
> As for how to handle the conflict/unconflicted-ness, I agree with John
> H.,
> the classification and rights issues are independent. I'd like to
make
> progress on the classsification, since that is less ambigous. Then
lets
> tackle the rights issue.
>
> --Paul
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Tony Jeffree" <tony@jeffree.co.uk>
> To: "Paul Nikolich" <paul.nikolich@ATT.NET>
> Cc: <STDS-802-SEC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG>
> Sent: Monday, April 21, 2008 12:15 PM
> Subject: Re: [802SEC] +++un-conflicted EC motion #4 regarding
> 802.20+++determine Mark Klerer's unconflcted/conflicted
> classification+++need mover and seconder+++
>
>
> > Paul -
> >
> > On reflection, I believe we are in deep weeds here with regard to
> > procedure.
> >
> > We (802) have no procedures in our P&P that define how an
> unconflicted EC
> > works; all we have with regard to the UC-EC is a set of requirements
> > imposed on us by the standards board. When they invented the UC-EC,
I
> > don't think that the SB anticipated the current situation at all -
it
> was
> > set up when Arnie was still Chair, so the question didn't arise. And
> as
> > Bob O'Hara was frequently called upon to point out to us, we can't
> change
> > our P&P simply by passing a motion. So, I believe that the only way
> to fix
> > this is through the SB doing one of two things:
> >
> > - Dissolving the UC-EC; or
> > - Making a ruling as to what rights an otherwise conflicted Chair of
> > 802.20 might have when representing the wishes of his working group.
> >
> > Or possibly by the EC Chair simply stating how he will interpret the
> rules
> > with regard to what a not-unconflicted Chair may do.
> >
> > I would personally advocate the first of these three solutions.
> >
> > Regards,
> > Tony
> >
> >
> > At 16:07 21/04/2008, Paul Nikolich wrote:
> >>Buzz,
> >>
> >>I disagree--we must be consistent in determining the
classification.
> The
> >>determination of conflicted vs unconflicted must be made using the
> >>criteria I established in my 3APR email (see extract below). This is
> >>consistent with how we have treated every EC member regarding their
> >>classification.
> >>
> >>Once we make the above decision, then we can take the second step.
> >>
> >>Regards,
> >>
> >>--Paul
> >>
> >>----- Original Message ----- From: Paul Nikolich
> >>Sent: Thursday, April 03, 2008 12:36 PM
> >>Subject: determination of unconflicted vs conflicted status of new
EC
> >>members
> >>
> >>
> >>All,
> >>
> >>The criteria we shall use in classifying the new EC members as
> >>Unconflicted or Conflicted regarding 802.20 decisions:
> >>a) The "perception of conflict" is a test for disclosure: is the EC
> >>member aware of a fact (about himself or someone else) that would
> cause a
> >>reasonable person on the outside looking in to believe that the
> member had
> >>an interest in the outcome or for whatever reason was unable to
> decide in
> >>the best interest of the IEEE.
> >>b) The test for a determination of an "actual conflict" was whether
> there
> >>was in fact an interest that could prevent someone from making an
> unbiased
> >>decision.
> >>
> >>[...rest of email deleted...]
> >>
> >>
> >>----- Original Message ----- From: "Rigsbee, Everett O"
> >><everett.o.rigsbee@boeing.com>
> >>To: "Paul Nikolich" <paul.nikolich@ATT.NET>;
> >><STDS-802-SEC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG>
> >>Sent: Monday, April 21, 2008 10:46 AM
> >>Subject: RE: [802SEC] +++un-conflicted EC motion #4 regarding
> >>802.20+++determine Mark Klerer's unconflcted/conflicted
> >>classification+++need mover and seconder+++
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>Paul, I think you have the right plan in the wrong order. I
> personally
> >>would be a lot more comfortable judging Mark (and other EC members)
> to
> >>be not Unconflicted if I was confident that they would be able to
> move
> >>and vote for WG directed positions. So I think we need to clarify
> what
> >>it means to be "not Unconflicted" before we vote on his status.
> Doesn't
> >>that make sense ??? :-)
> >>
> >>
> >>Thanx, Buzz
> >>Dr. Everett O. (Buzz) Rigsbee
> >>Executive Secretary, IEEE-802 LMSC
> >>Boeing IT
> >>PO Box 3707, M/S: 7M-FM
> >>Seattle, WA 98124-2207
> >>Ph: (425) 373-8960 Fx: (425) 865-7960
> >>Cell: (425) 417-1022
> >>everett.o.rigsbee@boeing.com
> >>
> >>
> >>-----Original Message-----
> >>From: Paul Nikolich [mailto:paul.nikolich@ATT.NET]
> >>Sent: Monday, April 21, 2008 7:37 AM
> >>To: STDS-802-SEC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
> >>Subject: [802SEC] +++un-conflicted EC motion #4 regarding
> >>802.20+++determine Mark Klerer's unconflcted/conflicted
> >>classification+++need mover and seconder+++
> >>
> >>Dear UC-EC members,
> >>
> >>I think we must follow a two step process.
> >>- First, let's make the determination whether Mark Klerer is
> >>unconflicted or
> >>conflicted.
> >>- Second, we'll decide on how to handle his rights as either an
> >>unconflicte
> >>or conflicted EC member.
> >>
> >>To take the first step, I would recommend the following UC-EC motion
> be
> >>made
> >>by an UC-EC member:
> >>
> >>Motion: Mark Klere shall not be added to the Unconflicted EC roster.
> >>
> >>Do I have a mover and seconder?
> >>
> >>Regards,
> >>
> >>--Paul
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>----- Original Message ----- From: "Tony Jeffree"
> <tony@JEFFREE.CO.UK>
> >>To: <STDS-802-SEC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG>
> >>Sent: Monday, April 21, 2008 8:23 AM
> >>Subject: Re: [802SEC] +++un-conflicted EC motion #4 regarding
> >>802.20+++determine Mark Klerer's unconflcted/conflicted
> >>classification+++need mover and seconder+++
> >>
> >>
> >>>I would second such a motion.
> >>>
> >>>Regards,
> >>>Tony
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>At 19:59 20/04/2008, Rigsbee, Everett O wrote:
> >>>>Paul, I much prefer the solution proposed by Roger Marks, that
any
> >>>>conflicted EC-members be entitled to propose and vote in favor of
> >>>>motions submitted to them as directed positions from their Working
> >>>>Group. It just seems fairer and more even-handed. And I have
> offered
> >>>>to make a motion to that effect.
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>Thanx, Buzz
> >>>>Dr. Everett O. (Buzz) Rigsbee
> >>>>Executive Secretary, IEEE-802 LMSC
> >>>>Boeing IT
> >>>>PO Box 3707, M/S: 7M-FM
> >>>>Seattle, WA 98124-2207
> >>>>Ph: (425) 373-8960 Fx: (425) 865-7960
> >>>>Cell: (425) 417-1022
> >>>>everett.o.rigsbee@boeing.com
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>-----Original Message-----
> >>>>From: Paul Nikolich [mailto:paul.nikolich@ATT.NET]
> >>>>Sent: Sunday, April 20, 2008 11:46 AM
> >>>>To: STDS-802-SEC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
> >>>>Subject: [802SEC] +++un-conflicted EC motion #4 regarding
> >>>>802.20+++determine Mark Klerer's unconflcted/conflicted
> >>>>classification+++need mover and seconder+++
> >>>>
> >>>>Dear Unconflicted EC members,
> >>>>
> >>>>There has been discussion over the past wek regarding the
> >>>>conflicted/un-conflicted classification of Mark Klerer,
> specifically
> >>>>that if
> >>>>he is not made a member of the UC-EC perhaps he should be given
> unique
> >>>>status regarding placing 802.20 WG motions before the UC-EC. I
> don't
> >>>>believe special status is needed to ensure fair and proper
> >>consideration
> >>>>of
> >>>>802.20 WG business by the UC-EC. A special status will only serve
> to
> >>>>complicate the unconflicted EC and conflicted EC classification
> >>process.
> >>>>If
> >>>>Mark is classified as conflicted, he will have the right to
propose
> >>that
> >>>>an
> >>>>UC-EC member place a motion on the floor on his behalf,
participate
> in
> >>>>crafting the motion language and voicing an opinion on changes to
> it.
> >>>>
> >>>>To that end, I'd like to propose the following motion:
> >>>>
> >>>>Motion: Mark Klere shall not be added to the Unconflicted EC
roster
> >>and
> >>>>shall have the right to propose that an UC-EC member place a UC-EC
> >>>>motion on
> >>>>the floor on his behalf, participate in crafting the motion
> language
> >>and
> >>>>
> >>>>voicing an opinion on changes to it.
> >>>>
> >>>>I need a mover and and seconder for the above motion. Only UC-EC
> >>>>members
> >>>>may participate in the vote.
> >>>>
> >>>>Regards,
> >>>>
> >>>>--Paul Nikolich
> >>>>
> >>>>----------
> >>>>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.
> >>
> >>----------
> >>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.
----------
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.