IEEE P-1622 Voting Systems Electronic Data Interchange - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

About This Presentation

IEEE P-1622 Voting Systems Electronic Data Interchange


IEEE P-1622 Voting Systems Electronic Data Interchange February 8 9, 2011 Meeting at the US Election Assistance Commission Arthur M. Keller, Ph.D., P-1622 Chair ... – PowerPoint PPT presentation

Number of Views:165
Avg rating:3.0/5.0
Slides: 54
Provided by: ArthurK152
Learn more at:


Transcript and Presenter's Notes

Title: IEEE P-1622 Voting Systems Electronic Data Interchange

IEEE P-1622Voting SystemsElectronic Data
  • February 89, 2011 Meeting
  • at the US Election Assistance Commission
  • Arthur M. Keller, Ph.D., P-1622 Chair

  • Call the meeting to order.
  • Appoint a secretary.
  • Thanks for participating in an issue of national
  • Thanks to James Long of EAC for hosting this
  • Thanks for John Wack of NIST for helping to
    organize this meeting.

  • Belinda Collins, Director of NIST Technology

  • James Long, U.S. Election Assistance Commission.
    Our host.

IEEE Matters
  • Attendance. In person attendees, make sure you
    sign the attendance list each time.
  • Remote attendees, we will take attendance
    periodically. You need to attend at least half
    of the meeting in order to count as attending the

IEEE Patent Policy Instructions
  • The IEEE-SA strongly recommends that at each WG
    meeting the chair or a designee
  • Show slides 1 through 4 of this presentation
  • Advise the WG attendees that
  • The IEEEs patent policy is consistent with the
    ANSI patent policy and is described in Clause 6
    of the IEEE-SA Standards Board Bylaws
  • Early identification of patent claims which may
    be essential for the use of standards under
    development is strongly encouraged
  • There may be Essential Patent Claims of which the
    IEEE is not aware. Additionally, neither the
    IEEE, the WG, nor the WG chair can ensure the
    accuracy or completeness of any assurance or
    whether any such assurance is, in fact, of a
    Patent Claim that is essential for the use of the
    standard under development.
  • Instruct the WG Secretary to record in the
    minutes of the relevant WG meeting
  • That the foregoing information was provided and
    that slides 1 through 4 (and this slide 0, if
    applicable) were shown
  • That the chair or designee provided an
    opportunity for participants to identify patent
    claim(s)/patent application claim(s) and/or the
    holder of patent claim(s)/patent application
    claim(s) of which the participant is personally
    aware and that may be essential for the use of
    that standard
  • Any responses that were given, specifically the
    patent claim(s)/patent application claim(s)
    and/or the holder of the patent claim(s)/patent
    application claim(s) that were identified (if
    any) and by whom.
  • The WG Chair shall ensure that a request is made
    to any identified holders of potential essential
    patent claim(s) to complete and submit a Letter
    of Assurance.
  • It is recommended that the WG chair review the
    guidance in IEEE-SA Standards Board Operations
    Manual 6.3.5 and in FAQs 12 and 12a on inclusion
    of potential Essential Patent Claims by
    incorporation or by reference.

Participants, Patents, and Duty to Inform
  • All participants in this meeting have certain
    obligations under the IEEE-SA Patent Policy.
  • Shall inform the IEEE (or cause the IEEE to be
    informed) of the identity of each holder of any
    potential Essential Patent Claims of which they
    are personally aware if the claims are owned or
    controlled by the participant or the entity the
    participant is from, employed by, or otherwise
  • Personal awareness means that the participant
    is personally aware that the holder may have a
    potential Essential Patent Claim, even if the
    participant is not personally aware of the
    specific patents or patent claims
  • Should inform the IEEE (or cause the IEEE to be
    informed) of the identity of any other holders
    of such potential Essential Patent Claims (that
    is, third parties that are not affiliated with
    the participant, with the participants employer,
    or with anyone else that the participant is from
    or otherwise represents)
  • The above does not apply if the patent claim is
    already the subject of an Accepted Letter of
    Assurance that applies to the proposed
    standard(s) under consideration by this group
  • Quoted text excerpted from IEEE-SA Standards
    Board Bylaws subclause 6.2
  • Early identification of holders of potential
    Essential Patent Claims is strongly encouraged
  • No duty to perform a patent search

Slide 1
Patent Related Links
  • All participants should be familiar with their
    obligations under the IEEE-SA Policies
    Procedures for standards development.
  • Patent Policy is stated in these sources
  • IEEE-SA Standards Boards Bylaws
  • http//
  • IEEE-SA Standards Board Operations Manual
  • http//
  • Material about the patent policy is available at
  • http//
  • If you have questions, contact the IEEE-SA
    Standards Board Patent Committee Administrator at or visit http//
  • This slide set is available at https//development

Slide 2
Call for Potentially Essential Patents
  • If anyone in this meeting is personally aware of
    the holder of any patent claims that are
    potentially essential to implementation of the
    proposed standard(s) under consideration by this
    group and that are not already the subject of an
    Accepted Letter of Assurance (LOA)
  • Either speak up now or
  • Provide the chair of this group with the identity
    of the holder(s) of any and all such claims as
    soon as possible or
  • Cause an LOA to be submitted

Slide 3
Other Guidelines for IEEE WG Meetings
  • All IEEE-SA standards meetings shall be conducted
    in compliance with all applicable laws, including
    antitrust and competition laws.
  • Dont discuss the interpretation, validity, or
    essentiality of patents/patent claims.
  • Dont discuss specific license rates, terms, or
  • Relative costs, including licensing costs of
    essential patent claims, of different technical
    approaches may be discussed in standards
    development meetings.
  • Technical considerations remain primary focus
  • Dont discuss or engage in the fixing of product
    prices, allocation of customers, or division of
    sales markets.
  • Dont discuss the status or substance of ongoing
    or threatened litigation.
  • Dont be silent if inappropriate topics are
    discussed do formally object.
  • --------------------------------------------------
  • See IEEE-SA Standards Board Operations Manual,
    clause 5.3.10 and Promoting Competition and
    Innovation What You Need to Know about the IEEE
    Standards Association's Antitrust and Competition
    Policy for more details.

Slide 4
Overview of the IEEE-SA Process
  • Malia Zaman
  • Program Manager
  • Voting Systems Electronic Data Interchange
  • P1622 Working Group Meetings
  • Feb 8-9, 2011

A New Beginning for P1622
  • P1622 is important work.
  • We welcome the involvement of all stakeholders.
  • IEEE is proud to be associated with this effort.
  • Developing a standard to support voting systems
    in the U.S. is critical.
  • Together, IEEE, NIST, and other stakeholders must
    see the standard through to completion.

In this Presentation we will cover
  • Overview of the IEEE-SA Process
  • Project Approval Process
  • Development of Draft Standard
  • Sponsor Balloting Process
  • myBallot/myProject Access/Membership Services
  • Standards Board Approval Process
  • Resources

IEEEA Global Organization
  • IEEE is a non-profit organization for
  • scientific and educational advancement
  • IEEE is made up of international
    technical professionals
    living around the world who are fostering
  • technological innovation and
  • excellence for the benefit of humanity

IEEE Standards Association
  • Oversees development of standards within IEEE
  • Global Membership
  • Over 7 000 individual members
  • Over 127 corporate members
  • Approximately 20 000 participants
  • Broad Standards Portfolio
  • Approximately 1 000 active standards
  • Approximately 400 standards in development
  • Governed by volunteers
  • An independent organization
  • Participants come together to develop
  • standards with many constituents

IEEE-SA Governance Structure
Board of Governors (BOG) Legal fiduciary,
strategy, policy, finance, Bus Dev,
International, Appeals, Awards
Standards Board (SASB) Standards Process SCC
Corporate Advisory Group (CAG) Corporate Program
Strategy Sponsor
Sponsors Societies (Computer Society), Committee
(EASC), Standards Coordinating Committees (SCCs)
,CAG, etc.
Standards Working Groups/ Projects
IEEE Standards Development
  • Five principles guide standards development
  • Ensuring integrity and wide acceptance for IEEE
  • IEEE standards reflect the standardization
    principles as
  • stated by the WTO

Societies and Technical Sponsor Committees
  • IEEE Aerospace and Electronic Systems
  • Society (AES)
  • IEEE-SA Board of Governors (BOG)
  • IEEE Broadcast Technology Society (BTS)
  • IEEE Computer Society (C)
  • C/SAB Standards Activities Board
  • P1622 Voting SystemsElectronic Data
    InterchangeWorking Group
  • IEEE Consumer Electronics Society (CES)
  • IEEE Communications Society (COM)
  • IEEE Electromagnetic Compatibility
  • Society (EMC)
  • IEEE Industry Applications Society (IAS)
  • IEEE Microwave Theory and Techniques
  • Society (MTT)
  • IEEE Nuclear and Plasma Sciences
  • Society
  • IEEE Nanotechnology Council (NTC)
  • IEEE Power Energy Society (PE)
  • IEEE Power Electronics Society (PEL)
  • IEEE Robotics and Automation Society (RAS)
  • IEEE Reliability Society (RS)
  • IEEE-SASB Coordinating Committees (SASB)
  • IEEE Vehicular Technology
  • Society (VT)

IEEE Sponsors Role of the Sponsor
  • Organization within IEEE that assumes
    responsibility for a particular standards idea
  • Takes responsibility for the technical content
    of the document and provides oversight
  • Responsible for determining the scope and
    nature of the technical content
  • Not a financial sponsorship
  • IEEE already has a large number of Sponsors
  • There are the various societies within the IEEE
  • Within those societies, there are often many
    committees that are active in standards

IEEE Standards Development Process Flow
Maximum of 4 years
Project Approval Process
Develop Draft Standard
IEEE-SA Standards Board Approval Process
Sponsor Ballot
Publish Standard
IEEE Standards Development Project Authorization
Maximum of 4 years
IEEE-SA Standards Board Approval Process
Project Approval Process
Develop Draft Standard
Sponsor Ballot
Publish Standard
  • A potential working group or study group gathers
    to work on the Project Authorization Request
    (PAR), up to six months before a PAR needs to be
  • With the support of the sponsor, submit a PAR to
    IEEE-SA Standards Board (SASB) for an approval to
    start the project.
  • PAR is reviewed by New Standards Committee
    (NesCom) and based on its recommendation, IEEE-SA
    Standards Board (SASB) approves/disapproves the

IEEE Standards Development Draft
Maximum of 4 years
Develop Draft Standard
IEEE-SA Standards Board Approval Process
Project Approval Process
Sponsor Ballot
Publish Standard
  • Working group (WG) is created/maintained under
    policies and procedures (PP) of the sponsoring
  • WG officers are designated to start the
    development of the standard
  • Write the draft of the standard
  • Submit finalized draft for Mandatory Editorial
    Coordination (MEC) to ensure conformance with
    IEEE requirements.

IEEE Standards Development Sponsor
Maximum of 4 years
Sponsor Ballot
IEEE-SA Standards Board Approval Process
Project Approval Process
Publish Standard
Develop Draft Standard
  • A ballot group is formed using an electronic
    balloting system called myProject/myBallot .
  • Composition of that balloting group cannot
    change when the ballot is initiated.
  • A sponsor ballot is initiated with the draft, to
    be reviewed, commented, and voted by the ballot
  • Needs 75 return response rate from the ballot
    group, and needs 75 affirmative(approved) votes
  • WG reviews all the approved and disapproved votes
    with comments submitted by the ballot group.
  • Make a reasonable attempt to resolve all negative
  • Add or revise materials as suggested
  • Submit responses to the comments
  • Recirculate the revised draft standard and
    comments out to the ballot group .

Creating a Web Account and MyBallot/myProject
Access/Membership Services
  • Accessing the myProject system requires an IEEE
    Web Account https//
  • MyBallot /MyProject Link
  • https//
  • Membership Services
  • http//

IEEE Standards Development Approval
Process to Publication
Maximum of 4 years
IEEE-SA Standards Board Approval Process
Project Approval Process
Develop Draft Standard
Sponsor Ballot
Publish Standard
  • Submit the final draft standard to Standard
    Review Committee (RevCom).
  • RevCom reviews the submitted documents and
    materials, and makes a recommendation to IEEE-SA
    Standards Board for an approval of the draft
  • IEEE-SA Standards Board reviews the
    recommendation and approve the draft standard.
  • Publish Standard
  • Complimentary copies sent to the WG.

Resource Links
Additional Information http//

For more information
  • Contact
  • Malia Zaman
  • Program ManagerTechnical Program
    DevelopmentPhone 1 732 562 3838
  • Email

  • Sue Vogel, Director of Technical Committee
    Programs, IEEE Standards Association.

Review Agenda
  • Today
  • Ratify goals for the meeting.
  • Common data format (CDF) and discussion of
  • Discussion of use case strategy.
  • CDF requirements from an election analysis
  • Presentation on OASIS EML.
  • Wednesday
  • Election system manufacturer presentations.
  • Agreement on issues.
  • Schedule next meeting.
  • Adjourn.

Goals for the Meeting
  1. Endorse and build upon the use case strategy for
    developing a CDF.
  2. Decide which existing data format to utilize as
    the basis for CDF development.
  3. Determine scope of a CDF for standardization.
  4. Agree on timeline, next steps, and schedule next

P-1622 WG Status and Overview
  • WG created a draft in 2007 that never proceeded
    to ballot.
  • SCC 38 voted to reconstitute P-1622 for review of
    draft and revision or redraft as necessary.
  • P-1622 has a new PAR (Project Activity Request).
  • P-1622 also wrote a new PP document.
  • At this meeting tomorrow, we will decide how to
    proceed with standard drafting process.

15 minute break
  • Resume at 1030am.

CDF Overview and Requirements
  • Introduction to a CDF John Wack, NIST.
  • EAC CDF requirements James Long, EAC.
  • TGDC perspective on CDF standard timeline
    Patrick McDaniel, IEEE Rep to the TGDC (Technical
    Guidelines Development Committee).

Use Case Strategy
  • Use cases drive requirements.
  • Requirements drive data formats.

  • Joel Rothschild, FVAP.
  • John Wack, NIST.

Post-election Tabulation AuditingUse Case
  • Neal McBurnett.

Other Use Cases
  • Blank ballot export.
  • Remote ballot printing. (new)
  • Import of remotely printed ballots for canvass.
  • Automated testing of voting systems.
  • Interoperability of voting systems components and
  • Other suggestions?

Blank Ballot Export
  • Important for UOCAVA.
  • Data mapping address and jurisdiction to ballot
  • Descriptions of ballot measures, contests and
  • Information on presentation and layout.

Remote Ballot Printing
  • Print ballot with voters selections or print
    blank ballot where voter hand-marks selections.
  • Ballot in local jurisdiction format or in FWAB
  • Issue Local or statewide contests.
  • Also print Voters Declaration/Affirmation.
  • Follow FWAB instructions (even if not using FWAB).

Import Remotely Printed Ballotsfor Canvass
  • Also an interoperability issue.
  • Useful for UOCAVA.
  • Relates to above use case.

Automated Testing of Voting Systems
  • Black-box testing vs. code review.
  • Standard test cases and files vs. randomly
    generated test cases and files.
  • Test cases and files that cover the space of
  • Interaction of test cases and code path analysis.
  • Generating test decks for Logic and Accuracy
  • Beyond black box testing. Why not have testing
    using constraints and specifications and based on
    knowledge of source code paths and boundary

Interoperability of Voting Systems Components and
  • Equivalence of the output of a re-export with the
    previously imported file.
  • Retention of data provenance information,
    important for auditing.
  • Supporting ancillary systems and services (e.g.,
    third-party blank ballot printing, auditing)
  • Consider an Interop for Voting Systems.

Use Case Discussion
  • Other proposed use cases?
  • Priority for use case development.
  • Volunteers?

Lunch (on your own)
  • Return at 115pm.

Use Case Discussion (contd)
  • Other proposed use cases?
  • Priority for use case development.
  • Volunteers?

CDF Requirementsan Election Analysis Perspective
  • Kim Brace, President, Election Data Services.

Presentations on OASIS EML
  • Technical overview David Webber, OASIS EML.

15 minute break
  • Resume at 330pm.

Presentations on OASIS EML (contd)
  • Initial technical analysisof EML suitability for
    UOCAVA use case Carmelo Montanez-Rivera, NIST.

Discussion on OASIS EML
  • Comments and questions.

Wrap Up for Day One
  • IEEE.
  • Tomorrow
  • Vendor presentations.
  • Agreements on how to proceed.
  • Think about what role you want to play.

  • Return back here at 9am Wednesday morning.
Write a Comment
User Comments (0)