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

Obviously I completely agree with Bob and Carls' comments. Given the elected officers have waited almost 8 months to assume their duties, a "customary process" does not seem appropriate.
As additional input, I refer everyone to Lowell Johnson's email of October 20th which he wrote to the Appellants and others. Lowell, who was the Chair of the Appeals Panel, clearly states the SEC should not postpone the vote or have events overcome the ruling. Not immediately seating the officers, if confirmed, can be viewed as letting events overcome the ruling. Not allowing confirmed officers to serve at the last Plenary before the March Plenary, where new elections will be held, is not in the spirit of the ruling from the Appeals Panel.
Jerry Upton 

"In a message dated 10/20/2003 7:58:59 PM Eastern Daylight  
   Time, writes:

To all appeal participants;

You all probably know there has been a question of clarification, and a request to see the minutes of the meeting.
1) It was our intention that the 802 SEC revote on the confirmation at their next regularly scheduled meeting. We understand there is such a meeting sometime in November, where this vote should be taken.
It is NOT permissible for the 802 SEC to postpone this vote until it becomes overcome by events.
Remember that it is a requirement that rationale be given if any (or all) the .20 officers are not confirmed.
2) There are no official minutes of an appeals panel meeting and none are required.
Therefore, none will be distributed.
I hope this clarifies these two issues.
If there are any further questions, please contact me.
Lowell Johnson,  Appeals Panel Chair
LGJohnson@Rangenet.comm or  218-827-2450"

In a message dated 11/6/2003 9:06:36 PM Eastern Standard Time, writes:

> All,
> I agree wholeheartedly with Bob's comments and interpretation ... 
> I see no legitimate rationale for making the elected officers of 802.20
> "sit on the bench" for another plenary.  To do so would only cause additional
> resentment from the WG members who elected them towards the EC
> and further impede progress in the WG.
> I believe that, if confirmed, the elected officers should take office immediately
> so that the WG can get down to business with all of this political crap behind
> them.
> Regards,
> Carl
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Bob O'Hara []
> Sent: Thursday, November 06, 2003 6:50 PM
> To: Paul Nikolich; IEEE802
> Cc:; Pittampalli, Eshwar (Eshwar); Gang Wu
> Subject: RE: [802SEC] 802.20 appeal panel action: plan for EC action
> Paul,
> While it may be the "customary process" for elected officers to take their office at the end of the plenary session, this is normally because the actual WG elections occur after any opportunity for the officers to be confirmed by the EC at the beginning of the plenary session.  It is just as valid to state the customary process as "the elected officers of a WG take their office at the next meeting of the WG after confirmation by the EC."
> I can find nothing in the P&P that supports one statement of the "custom" over the other.  Is there any justification to prevent the officers from taking office immediately after confirmation?  This would seem to be the most rational and useful course to follow to put this behind us.
>  -Bob
> -----Original Message-----
> From: [] On Behalf Of Paul Nikolich
> Sent: Thursday, November 06, 2003 3:09 PM
> To: IEEE802
> Cc:; 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: <>
> 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