Easc issues to date 1
1 / 17

EASC Issues to Date, 1 - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

  • Uploaded on

EASC Issues to Date, 1. EASC submits requests for invited experts for working groups in September 2010; SASB disapproves list

I am the owner, or an agent authorized to act on behalf of the owner, of the copyrighted work described.
Download Presentation

PowerPoint Slideshow about 'EASC Issues to Date, 1' - selene

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation

Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author.While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Presentation Transcript
Easc issues to date 1
EASC Issues to Date, 1

  • EASC submits requests for invited experts for working groups in September 2010; SASB disapproves list

  • SASB continues to deal with issues related to 1680 concerning invited experts, and responds to EASC’s desires to include commercial terms, and working group P&Ps in March 2011.

  • EASC submits Sponsor P&Ps in December 2011; concerns raised by AudCom; EASC withdraws P&Ps from agenda

  • Various concerns raised about participation of various industry segments by EASC members.  

  • Telecons held between AudCom and EASC during March and April 2012 to resolve concerns about EASC P&Ps

  • IEEE-SA staff notifies EASC in April 2012 that AudCom would not be able to approve EASC’s proposed revisions to working group P&Ps.

Easc issues to date 2
EASC Issues to Date, 2

  • New EASC Sponsor P&Ps approved in June 2012.

  • SASB conditionally approves the PAR for revision of a 1680.1 standard in June 2012 contingent upon favorable review of WG P&P by AudCom. 

  • EASC requests modifications from IEEE baseline WG P&Ps; 4 cycles of review with AudCom between April 2012 and December 2012.

  • Appeal filed with SASB in December 2012 regarding 1680.2 and 1680.3 (found in favor of EASC)

  • SASB rejects EASC’s proposed revisions to WG P&Ps in December 2012, revises the working group P&Ps consistent with baseline P&Ps and requires that the SASB revised P&Ps be used immediately by all EASC working groups for at least one year.

  • SASB appoints Oversight Committee and directs the Oversight Committee to conduct elections for new working group officers

Easc issues to date 3
EASC Issues to Date, 3

  • ITI submits complaint to CS and appeal to SASB

  • Recognizing CS fiduciary responsibility, SAB VP appoints Ad Hoc Committee to investigate complaint specifics  

Iti complaint 1
ITI complaint, 1

Part A: “Members of the International Sustainable Development Foundation (ISDF) Server Launch Oversight Group (SLOG) were evenly divided on whether to recommend IEEE or the National Sanitation Foundation for the server standard [1680.4]. (While the formal vote was 4-3, the one voting member who was unable to attend this group’s final meeting indicated in a public forum that his vote would have been in support of remaining with IEEE.) Therefore, there is clearly no consensus, let alone a mandate, among the members of this advisory group to switch the development of the server standard to the National Sanitation Foundation and consequently break apart the family of standards that exists under IEEE.”

Iti complaint 2
ITI complaint, 2

Part B: “The issue voted on by the SLOG members was limited to the question of whether to launch the server standard within IEEE or within the National Sanitation Foundation. This external group was not charged with advising the EASC with regard to other product categories (e.g., PCs, printers and televisions), and stakeholders representing these other categories had virtually no opportunity to provide input into this group. “

Iti complaint 3
ITI complaint, 3

  • Part C: “By a 5-3 vote, the EASC members subsequently relied on this split recommendation to refuse to launch either the server standard OR the 1680.1 computer revision in IEEE. This committee did not broadly or formally survey affected stakeholders in the computer category, and instead used a split vote on servers to try and move significant portions of the entire 1680 standards program to the National Sanitation Foundation. Not only was there no clear mandate by the ISDF’s SLOG to cancel planned work within the IEEE, the motion to do the same with the long-delayed revision of the PC standard seemed to be based on the immediately preceding server motion, without any discussion of the separate ramifications.  In addition, the serious and ongoing concerns expressed by the industry partners in the EASC clearly means that there is no “consensus” among stakeholders to relocate to the National Sanitation Foundation.”

Iti requested remedy
ITI Requested Remedy

  • “ITI is requesting that the Computer Society overturn the EASC decisions to cease work on 1680.1 and 1680.4. Changing SDOs or working with two separate SDOs will be resource intensive, for the EASC and for any Working Group past and future participants, and will not deliver the best product. Industry welcomes the opportunity to work collaboratively with all stakeholders, and we continue to believe that we have the tools and methods within IEEE to develop credible independent environmental standards for electronic products.“

Ad hoc committee guidance 1 of 2
Ad Hoc Committee Guidance, 1 of 2

  • “It is important that the Ad Hoc remain narrowly focused on its task. The task is to determine if the decision that the EASC made on March 7 to request withdrawal of the PARs for 1680.1 and 1680.4 should be overturned, as requested in the ITI complaint.”

Ad hoc committee guidance 2 of 2
Ad Hoc Committee Guidance, 2 of 2

  • “The decision-making employed by the EASC may have been unduly influenced by a committee within ISDF, an external body contracted by the EPA. In fact, EASC explicitly said it was acting on the recommendation of an outside group, chaired by a GEC/EPEAT employee and paid for via EPA funding.

  • The decision-making employed by the EASC may have been detrimental to the best interests of the IEEE and the CS.”

Ad hoc committee findings 1
Ad Hoc Committee Findings, 1

  • EASC minutes of 2/7/2013 show that “Chiang made a motion to wait until the Server Standard Launch Oversight Group  has made their decision to decide whether to withdraw the 1680.4 PAR or launch the 1680.4 working group, and to not issue the call for participation on February 18th. The group wanted to do this so they could take this decision into consideration as part of their decision. Cannon seconded. The motion was approved.  This was an ISDF committee comprised primarily from the 8 members of the EASC.”

  • “.1 Revision PAR: Meeting materials include actions taken related to this PAR to date. Cannon made a motion to wait until the Server Standard Launch Oversight Group has made their decision to decide whether to withdraw the 1680.1 PAR or launch the 1680.1 working group, and to not issue the call for participation on February 18th.“

Ad hoc committee findings 2
Ad Hoc Committee Findings, 2

  • EASC minutes of 3/7/2013 show that “Rifer noted that the Server Standard Launch Oversight Group met on February 19th and voted on their recommendation as to which SDO through which to develop a server standard. The group voted 4 – 3 to recommend that the server standard be developed through NSF. As a result of this vote, ISDF is now developing a transition plan to develop a server standard under NSF.”

  • “Cannon motioned to withdraw the server standard PAR. Chiang seconded. The motion was approved. Cannon motioned to not move forward with the WG process for the server standard. Chiang seconded. The motion was approved.”

Ad hoc committee findings 3
Ad Hoc Committee Findings, 3

  • EASC minutes of 3/7/2013 further show ”Chiang motioned to withdraw the 1680.1 revision standard PAR and not move forward with the WG process for the 1680.1 revision standard. Cannon seconded. The motion was approved.”

  • ”The EASC stated their understanding that EPEAT plans to conduct these standard development activities under other SDOs.“

Ad hoc committee findings 4
Ad Hoc Committee Findings, 4

  • Thus, the ITI complaints Parts A, B & C are substantively supported by the EASC records.

  • It should be noted that the members of the SLOG and the EASC were virtually the same.

  • The Ad Hoc finds the complaint justified:

    • “After careful investigation and several interviews, the Ad Hoc Committee determined that the request for withdrawal of the P1680.1 revision and the P1680.4 PARs was not in the best interest of the IEEE or even the community that supports the P1680 family of standards.

    • The Ad Hoc Committee also determined that there was sufficient support and interest in developing the standards within the IEEE, for which there are outstanding PARs.  In light of this interest, Working Groups should be formed and the standards developed.

    • The Ad Hoc Committee recommends the assignment of the PARs to the SAB.”

Recommendation for easc dissolution
Recommendation for EASC Dissolution

  • The Ad Hoc also finds that

    • “EASC leadership determined it would not operate working groups under IEEE SASB policies and procedures.”

    • “EASC relied on an external group for a key decision regarding its responsibilities.”

    • “High degree of overlap between the EASC and the SLOG membership suggests undue external influence on IEEE processes.”

  • The Ad Hoc Committee recommends the dissolution of EASC.


  • Whereas, the IEEE Computer Society Standards Activities Board (SAB) has accepted the report presented by the Ad Hoc Committee, and has concluded that:

    • Once the new EASC Working Group P&Ps were approved in December, EASC determined it would not operate working groups under IEEE SASB policies and procedures.

    • EASC's delay of the 1680.1 revision and 1680.4 working group initiation between December 2012 and March 7, 2013 and subsequent vote to withdraw their PARs were dependent on recommendations from an external group whose interests conflicted or competed with IEEE's interests to pursue environment standards development.

Motion page 2
Motion, page 2

  • Moved that, the EASC decision to withdraw the 1680.1 and 1680.4 PARs should be overturned.

  • Therefore, as the SAB finds that EASC will not operate under IEEE standards operating procedures nor act in the best interests of IEEE, and moves to dissolve the EASC.

  • The SAB delegates authority to the Computer Society Vice President for Standards Activities, the Chair of the IEEE Standards Association Standards Board, and IEEE legal counsel to implement the appropriate procedure for EASC dissolution and report the final resolution to the SAB.“