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

Re: [802SEC] 802.20 appeal panel action: plan for EC action


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?



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: <<>>
>> To: 
>> <<>>
>> Cc: <<>>; 
>> <<>>; 
>> <<>>; 
>> <<>>; 
>> <<>>; 
>> <<>>
>> 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    
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