|
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
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
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
|