Thread Links Date Links
Thread Prev Thread Next Thread Index Date Prev Date Next Date Index

Re: [802SEC] IEEE Staff interpretation of Suspension of P&Ps

Paul-
Sounds good.
It is often that the original sin is not nearly as bad as the precedent it sets.
Geoff

On 4/26/13 7:37 AM, Paul Nikolich wrote:
Geoff,
 
That makes sense.  You've brought up the point on the public email thread, so it's captured here now.  Furthermore I will make note of its appropriateness in my plenary session report on email ballot decisions in July (which I think might be the best way to go because it is minuted and, if we are lucky, a SASB decision will have been rendered which I can include in my report, all captured in a nice and tidy minuted text).  OK?
 
--Paul
 
------ Original Message ------
From: "Geoff Thompson" <thompson@ieee.org>
Sent: 4/26/2013 9:39:54 AM
Subject: Re: [802SEC] IEEE Staff interpretation of Suspension of P&Ps
Paul-
I am concerned about the long term record and it future (mis)use as a basis for precedent.
Therefore, I would respectfully request that the succinct record on this motion include the fact that its appropriateness was questionable at the time of the motion.  Hopefully that record would be amended with the outcome of the final SA ruling once it is established.

Thank you,

    Geoff

On 4/26/13 5:46 AM, Tony Jeffree wrote:
Paul -

That sounds like a good plan.

Regards,
Tony


On 26 April 2013 13:42, Paul Nikolich <paul.nikolich@att.net> wrote:
Tony, Geoff,
 
I will request a formal interpretation from SASB on whether the motion should be declared out of order.  My logic is as follows: it fell in a gray area of Sponsor policy where it seems to be out-of-order (we don't have independent authority over that particular rule), but perhaps its not (we weren't asking to suspend bylaws per RROO).   
 
Therefore, my plan is to obtain a crisp definition from SASB of what is in and out of order regarding a rules suspension motion, using this motion as an example.  Ultimately this will be a generally useful interpretation from SASB for all Sponsors.
 
Regards,
 
--Paul
 
------ Original Message ------
From: "Tony Jeffree" <tony@jeffree.co.uk>
Sent: 4/26/2013 8:22:29 AM
Subject: Re: [802SEC] IEEE Staff interpretation of Suspension of P&Ps
Indeed so.

Regards,
Tony


On 26 April 2013 12:51, Geoff Thompson <thompson@ieee.org> wrote:
None the less, it would be appropriate (for the record) to rule the motion out of order.

Geoff


On 4/25/13 7:57 PM, Paul Nikolich wrote:
Subur, The motion fails. --Paul

On Apr 25, 2013, at 9:55 PM, "Das, Subir" <sdas@APPCOMSCI.COM> wrote:

Paul,

Are you going to cancel the motion? I did vote Approve with the assumption that EC can suspend the rule.  

 

Regards,

_Subir

Paul -

Given that response, I believe that the right course of action at this point is for you to cancel the motion on the grounds that it is out of order.

Regards,
Tony

On Apr 25, 2013 7:35 PM, "Paul Nikolich" <paul.nikolich@att.net> wrote:

Dear EC Members,

 

I just received the following communication from IEEE Staff regarding an interpretation of whether or not a Sponsor can suspend their P&P, which you need to consider when casting your vote on the motion to suspend that we have in process.  Please keep in mind it is an interpretation--not until SASB considers an action on a Sponsor motion to suspend their P&P, would a formal decision on the validity of such an action be made.

 

Regards,

 

--Paul

 

------ Forwarded Message ------

From: "Yvette Ho Sang" <y.hosang@ieee.org>

To: "Paul Nikolich" <paul.nikolich@att.net>

Cc: "Claire Topp" <topp.claire@dorsey.com>

Sent: 4/25/2013 2:16:04 PM

Subject: Suspension of P&Ps

 

Paul,

 

I'd appreciate it if you could please send this to the EC reflector.

 

I was notified of the questions by EC members about whether the Sponsor P&Ps could be suspended by the EC.  I conferred with outside counsel, Claire Topp, whose advice mirrored my own opinion. We believe that the EC cannot suspend the Sponsor P&Ps because ultimate authority for the procedures lie not with the EC, but with AudCom and the SASB. Any action by the EC would have to be accepted by AudCom and/or approved by the SASB. 

 

Realistically, I don't believe AudCom or the SASB would allow Sponsors to suspend their P&Ps because of the risks associated with this action. However, the EC can present their request to AudCom if they would like it to be considered.

 

Regards,

 

Yve

 

 

 

Yvette  Ho Sang, MBA, ARM

Risk Management Analyst

IEEE Standards Association

445 Hoes Lane

Piscataway, NJ 08854

 

Fostering technological innovation and excellence for the benefit of humanity.

---------- 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.
---------- 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.