Re: [802SEC] +++un-conflicted EC motion #4 regarding 802.20+++determine Mark Klerer's unconflcted/conflicted classification+++need mover and seconder+++
I orginally sent the below message yesterday, but for some reason it was
blocked. --Paul
----- Original Message -----
From: "Paul Nikolich" <paul.nikolich@att.net>
To: <STDS-802-SEC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG>
Sent: Tuesday, April 29, 2008 2:19 PM
Subject: Re: [802SEC] +++un-conflicted EC motion #4 regarding
802.20+++determine Mark Klerer's unconflcted/conflicted
classification+++need mover and seconder+++
> Bob,
>
> To the best of my recollection, the original members of the UC-EC were
> determined as follows.
> 1) Buzz and I were determined to unambiguously be subject to neither a
> perception of conflict or actually conflicted. I can't remember exactly
> how this determination was made, but we had the SA attorney involved in
> interviewing us and agreeing we were unconflicted. Everyone else remained
> to be classified.
> 2) Buzz and I were chartered to determine which of the remaining EC
> members may have perceived or actual conflicts.
> 3) We made the initial determinations. This was done confidentially to
> protect individuals privacy.
> 4) Some EC members objected to their classification, we had further
> confidential discussions with them.
> 5) We made the final determinations.
> 6) The UC-EC members were publicly announced.
>
> Based on the above, SASB didn't make the initial determinations, the
> unconflicted subset of the EC did. The UC-EC subset remains responsible
> for making the determinations.
>
> --Paul
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Bob O'Hara" <bohara@wysiwyg104.com>
> To: "Paul Nikolich" <paul.nikolich@ATT.NET>;
> <STDS-802-SEC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG>
> Sent: Tuesday, April 29, 2008 1:58 PM
> 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.