802.20 Participants,
This information concerning the 802.20
confirmation vote is being forwarded to you in response to a request from Paul Nikolich and Gary Robinson.
Best Regards,
Mark Klerer
-----Original Message-----
From: Paul Nikolich
[mailto:paul.nikolich@att.net]
Sent: Thursday, November 06, 2003 6:09 PM
To: IEEE802
Cc: jerry1upton@aol.com;
Pittampalli, Eshwar (Eshwar); Gang Wu
Subject: [802SEC] 802.20 appeal
panel action: plan for EC action
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: <j.gorman@ieee.org>
To: <Paul.nikolich@worldnet.att.net>
Cc: <k.rupp@ieee.org>; <don@lexmark.com>; <j.carlo@ieee.org>; <ghpeterson@ieee.org>; <bjohnson@thermon.com>; <deese.pamela@dorsey.com>
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
|