RE: Process issue with the Bylaws ballot resolution

[don@xxxxxxxxxxx]

Rick:

The BoG is fully empowered to make any change to the documents
in any way they like including addressing comments submitted during SASB
balloting.  Having the full set of comments in front of them for their
consideration clearly enables this.  The BoG is absolutely not required
to approve an SASB recommendation as presented; it may amend to its heart's
content.

I have personally been known to amend SASB recommendations
at BoG meetings to addressed issues raised during SASB balloting.  I'm
not promising to do that on this ballot because I haven't come to a conclusion
on all the comments made.  I will say that all valid editorial issues,
e.g., typos, raised by the SASB will be fixed for the BoG; there's clearly
no reason to propagate those errors.

***************************************************************************
Don Wright                     don@lexmark.com
                               f.wright@ieee.org / f.wright@computer.org
Director of Standards
Lexmark International          INCITS Executive Board Vice-Chair
C14/082-3                      IEEE SA Standards Board Past Chair
740 New Circle Rd              IEEE SASB Patent Committee Chair  
Lexington, Ky 40550            Member: IEEE SA Board of Governors
859-825-4808 (phone)           Member: IEEE CS SAB & W3C AC
603-963-8352 (fax)             Director, IEEE-ISTO
***************************************************************************

 

"Townsend, Richard L, JR (Rick)" <rltownsend@lucent.com> 11/02/2006 03:08 PM

To:        "'don@lexmark.com'" <don@lexmark.com>         cc:        stds-board@ieee.org, stds-patcom@ieee.org, "'pp-dialog@ieee.org'" <pp-dialog@ieee.org>         Subject:        RE: Process issue with the Bylaws ballot resolution

Don,

Thanks for the response.  It does address my concerns except for one case.  As I pointed out in the example in my previous email, I believe one of my comments is the result of a goof in developing the text based on PatCom’s agreement.  If the ballot result goes forward before the SASB reviews the results, what happens if SASB changes the text?

            RFick

 

-----Original Message-----
From: don@lexmark.com [mailto:don@lexmark.com]
Sent: Thursday, November 02, 2006 10:56 AM
To: Townsend, Richard L, JR (Rick)
Cc: stds-board@ieee.org; stds-patcom@ieee.org
Subject: Re: Process issue with the Bylaws ballot resolution

 

Rick:

My understanding as well as staff's understanding is that a by-laws change does not require any resolution of comments associated with YES or NO votes.  While this ballot was done electronically, it could have just as well been done at a face-to-face meeting with 30 days notice.  Comments associated with negative votes at meeting are never resolved.  Those desiring to convince others on the board have the opportunity to present their case via e-mail during the ballot period and even those who may have already voted can change their vote up until the time of the closure of the balloting period.

That said, the Core Drafting Committee is looking at ALL the comments received during the ballot and is proposing a resolution for each of them.  We are using the same commenting tools we used during the PatCom process.  I expect to complete that process in the next few days.

All comments and their proposed resolutions will be provided to the BoG for their consideration during their ballot.  The BoG may chose to accept or reject any of the proposed resolutions of any of the comments during their consideration of the SASB by-laws change.  The comments and proposed resolutions will also be made available to at least the Standards Board members.
 

***************************************************************************
Don Wright                     don@lexmark.com
                              f.wright@ieee.org / f.wright@computer.org
Director of Standards
Lexmark International          INCITS Executive Board Vice-Chair
C14/082-3                      IEEE SA Standards Board Past Chair
740 New Circle Rd              IEEE SASB Patent Committee Chair  
Lexington, Ky 40550            Member: IEEE SA Board of Governors
859-825-4808 (phone)           Member: IEEE CS SAB & W3C AC
603-963-8352 (fax)             Director, IEEE-ISTO
***************************************************************************

 

"Townsend, Richard L, JR (Rick)" <rltownsend@lucent.com> 11/01/2006 02:10 PM

To:        "'don@lexmark.com'" <don@lexmark.com>, "'stds-patcom@ieee.org'" <stds-patcom@ieee.org>, "'stds-board@ieee.com'" <stds-board@ieee.com>        cc:        "'pp-dialog@ieee.org'" <pp-dialog@ieee.org>        Subject:        Process issue with the Bylaws ballot resolution

Don and Board Members,
I'm concerned about the process being followed regarding the Bylaws ballot, in particular about having comments coming out of a ballot that neither PatCom nor the SASB has had an opportunity to discuss.  It looks to me that there are unresolved NO votes on that ballot.  At least one of those comments concerns text that PatCom has not discussed.  Yes, the documents were sent out for review to PatCom members and to the interested parties on the pp-dialog email list and I confess that with my PatCom hat on I missed this issue (and 3 others).  With my SASB hat on I did not.  

So it's not clear to me what process we are following and as a matter of due process I do have a couple of questions.
Should PatCom review the comments from the latest ballot?
Should the SASB be notified of unresolved comments so they may consider the issue before the result goes to the BoG?
I think the answer to both questions should be yes.  Should the process for changing our Bylaws, the rules by which we live, be any less robust than those we use for approving our standards?  I think not.  


As an example, let me use one of my comments that raises an issue about text that I believe is clearly in error.  As a reminder, here is the paragraph in question from the Bylaws and my comment.

From the Proposed Bylaws (p.3 line 20 of the clean copy):
"The Submitter of a Letter of Assurance shall agree (a) to provide notice of a Letter of Assurance either through a Statement of Encumbrance or by binding any assignee or transferee to the terms of such a Letter of Assurance: (b) to require its assignee or transferee to agree to similarly provide such notice and (c) to bind subsequent assignees or transferees to agree to provide such notice as described in (a) and (b)."


My comment to the ballot:
"combing b) and c) for assignees
Bylaws, pg 3, line 22

From our PatCom discussions, I believe b) and c) are intended to be part of a single action in which the holder of a patent right is asked to do two things. In fact, the meaning of c) does not stand well by itself and seems to require the original Submitter to bind all subsequent assignees.  

Change line 22 to read '(b) to require its assignee or transferee to (i) agree to similarly provide such notice and (ii) bind subsequent assignees or transferees to agree to provide such notice as described in (a) and (b).' "

I do not believe that what PatCom agreed to in principle meant to have the Submitter of an LoA track subsequent assignees and require that Submitter to get the assignees, in perpetuity, to agree to anything as is stated in (c).  The Submitter is not part of those subsequent transfers and has no power and, in fact, no knowledge to force any agreement.

               Rick