Re: CCIE Amnesty?

Ok.... So, I'm missing something.

I have an issue with the "country" thing because a partner may provide
services to more than one country, and the CCIE may do work in many
places while living in a different one (as John Chambers says, it's the
"global economy"). But even traveling to a different country doesn't
constitute any permanency (just make sure you have a business visa!). I
just don't see what business it is of Cisco's where someone earns their
money.

Channel partners (where I think this is stemming from) have restrictions
by country or theatre, subject to their audit/review process. But
that's not the choice, or responsibility of the CCIE to keep up with
where their company is or is not allowed to do business.

As for those who "rent" their numbers out, I believe that Cisco does
indeed allow half of the required certifications to be held by
contractors. While the intent there is to assure that some business
(real work) is being done, that becomes and audit area on the channel side.

Now, I just went through the CCIE policies
(http://www.cisco.com/web/learning/le3/ccie/policies/index.html) and
looked at the Certifications and Confidentiality Agreement
(http://www.cisco.com/web/learning/downloads/Cisco-Career-Certifications-and-Confidentiality-Agreement_v12.pdf)
that we've all signed.... I even went through the Logo Guidelines
(http://www.cisco.com/web/learning/le3/ccie/certified_ccies/logo_guidelines.html)
and found absolutely no reference to how, if, or under what guidelines a
CCIE may gain employment or income from a company.

While I do think it's not cool if there are problems that a company
can't figure out how many CCIE's to ACTUALLY EMPLOY, there is nothing I
read that would come close to inferring that it's the CCIE's
responsibility or problem in not meeting those requirements. So unless
the CCIE commits fraud in the action, I'm not seeing how Cisco could
take away the individual's certification. It seems like a method of
fishing for the partners (which may be ok, although I'd expect they
would/should be punished approriately!).

Can someone point me to another agreement that we all signed or agreed
to which does limit the nature of business practices? Apparently I've
forgotten about it, if it exists, and can't seem to find it on Cisco's
web site or through the Almighty, Omniscient Google. ;)

Scott

Darby Weaver wrote:
> Actually - it is pretty close to impossible for a CCIE's number to be used
> without his or her knowledge and consent.
>
> So again, the problem and the punishment fall on the CCIE.
>
> The CCIE cannot plead ignorance. The CCIE agreed to the agreement as a part
> of accepting to 1. take the lab 2. agreement with the terms and
> stipulations.
>
> If a CCIE's digits are being used without his or her consent - this would be
> interesting since a partner or other person would wither have to be very
> intimate with the CCIE or have totally hacked the CCIE's profile.
>
> Either way the CCIE is an investment.
>
> If a person is so careless to let it simply get stripped in such a manner,
> then the CCIE probably is not using it anyway.
>
> CCIE's are not the lowest people on the food chain when it comes to
> intellect and ability to research so....
>
> Most CCIE's would be hard to take advantage of in this manner.
>
> Therefore if one's digits are being used, it would be reasonable to safely
> assume the CCIE had knowledge of what had transpired.
>
> And when found out would totally understand the consequences of his or her
> actions.
>
> Agreed?
>
> Not many naive CCIE's out there - If there are - how did they pass the lab
> anyway...
>
> On Mon, Jul 27, 2009 at 10:06 AM, NN Kumar <nagendra.cisco_at_gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>> Darby,
>>
>> Your point is right when a CCIE is associating his ID with a partner whom
>> with he is not working. I agree, the candidate deserves the punishment of
>> being stripped with his certificates.
>>
>> But my concern is, If a partner goes for audit in some country showing few
>> CCIEs are associated in that country where in real, those CCIEs neither have
>> work permit for those country nor living in that country, but working as
>> part of the company in different country. How will the candiate knows that
>> his ID is misused.?.
>>
>> Regards,
>> Nag
>>
>>
>> On Mon, Jul 27, 2009 at 7:12 PM, Darby Weaver <ccie.weaver_at_gmail.com>wrote:
>>
>>
>>> I am still not sure whether their is any "law" or "legal" repurcussion.
>>>
>>> I candidate signs an agreement saying how he or whe will use the
>>> certifciation within specifications as specified by Cisco.
>>>
>>> If the candidate, the ONLY person who can assign his/her own number to a
>>> partner, does so... then the partner is not at fault because the CCIE was an
>>> idiot.
>>>
>>> The CCIE when caught up with either in the current year or in later years
>>> as deemed appropriate by Cisco will be stripped of a CCIE and probably for
>>> life.
>>>
>>> The CCIE and not the parter, has made a conscious decision to DEVALUE the
>>> CCIE progam. It is the CCIE who will always suffer the AXE, not the
>>> partner.
>>>
>>> The partner will have to find another CCIE else lose the partnership.
>>>
>>> The CCIE will have to find another certification program to defraud.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Mon, Jul 27, 2009 at 5:33 AM, NN Kumar <nagendra.cisco_at_gmail.com>wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>> Hi,
>>>>
>>>> I think it is not fair to strip an individual's certificates when the
>>>> employer is trying to cheat Cisco. Normally, the company will not let know
>>>> the individual where his certificate is being associated. In such case, how
>>>> would any one get to know there is something illegal association happening
>>>> with his certificate?.
>>>>
>>>> Is there any cisco mail list where we can confirm if this is legal or
>>>> not?.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Sun, Jul 26, 2009 at 8:26 PM, Darby Weaver <ccie.weaver_at_gmail.com>wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> I think it is not so much a legal issue.
>>>>>
>>>>> Cisco would probably just strip the person's certifications.
>>>>>
>>>>> On Sun, Jul 26, 2009 at 9:14 AM, Cisco League <
>>>>> ciscoleague_at_googlemail.com>wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> What if you are asked to attach your CCO to a country where you are
>>>>>>
>>>>> not
>>>>>
>>>>>> employed.
>>>>>> Example: You work for a company having offices in countries A,B and C.
>>>>>>
>>>>> The
>>>>>
>>>>>> company has a partner status in country A and B but not C. You are
>>>>>>
>>>>> employed
>>>>>
>>>>>> in country A but asked to attach your CCO to country C thus helping
>>>>>>
>>>>> the
>>>>>
>>>>>> company to get partner status in country C. Now where does the company
>>>>>>
>>>>> and
>>>>>
>>>>>> the candidate stand with respect to legal aspect and possible
>>>>>>
>>>>> repercussions
>>>>>
>>>>>> to the candidate if this comes to notice of Cisco.
>>>>>> To my understanding you should be employed in the country where your
>>>>>>
>>>>> CCIE
>>>>>
>>>>>> numbers is being used to gain partner status.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Sun, Jul 26, 2009 at 1:16 PM, Darby Weaver <ccie.weaver_at_gmail.com>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Considering there is a process to become a partner - I don't think
>>>>>>>
>>>>> it is
>>>>>
>>>>>>> easy to become registered with a Partner without one's own notice.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> Unless
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> they have all your usernames, passwords, CSCO Number/Password, etc.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> Blogs and organic groups at http://www.ccie.net
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>> _______________________________________________________________________
>>>>>
>>>>>> Subscription information may be found at:
>>>>>> http://www.groupstudy.com/list/CCIELab.html
>>>>>>
>>>>> Blogs and organic groups at http://www.ccie.net
>>>>>
>>>>> _______________________________________________________________________
>>>>> Subscription information may be found at:
>>>>> http://www.groupstudy.com/list/CCIELab.html
>>>>>
>
>
> Blogs and organic groups at http://www.ccie.net
>
> _______________________________________________________________________
> Subscription information may be found at:
> http://www.groupstudy.com/list/CCIELab.html

Blogs and organic groups at http://www.ccie.net
Received on Mon Jul 27 2009 - 12:10:29 ART