Re: FW: Relationships between IEEE-ISTO and IEEE-SA
Jim-
In general this seems "constructive" but I have some concerns.
1) It offers no specific immediate relief to the current issue
with respect to the "conflict in branding rights" over 802.16. I do not
think it is appropriate to let this issue go forward un-addressed.
2) It is not clear to me that "general high-level guidelines" will
be binding in anyway upon the behavior of current or future ISTO entities.
3) There is no mention whatsoever about any IEEE effort whatsoever
to preserve the use of the term "standard" to activities associated with
authorized activities of accredited standards organizations. Those of us
who have worked in this area over the years have worked very hard (at the
ongoing request of the IEEE) to preserve the "brand integrity" of both the
terms "IEEE" and "Standard". If the IEEE chooses to discard that long-term
commitment from its standards volunteers then it needs to carefully
evaluate how it intends to be able to get volunteers to conform to other
guidelines that the IEEE wishes to put forth.
Best regards,
Geoff
At 10:14 AM 8/30/00 -0500, Jim Carlo wrote:
>fyi.
>
>Jim Carlo(jcarlo@ti.com) Cellular:1-214-693-1776 Voice&Fax:1-214-853-5274
>TI Fellow, Networking Standards at Texas Instruments
>Chair, ISO/IEC JTC1/SC6 Telecom and Info Exchange Between Systems
>Chair, IEEE802 LAN/MAN Standards Committee
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Standards Activities Board [mailto:SAB2000@COMPUTER.ORG] On Behalf
>Of Stephen L. Diamond
>Sent: Tuesday, August 29, 2000 11:21 PM
>To: SAB2000@COMPUTER.ORG
>Subject: FWD: Relationships between IEEE-ISTO and IEEE-SA
>
>
>Dear Colleagues,
>
>This evening I received the following memo from Don Loughry, IEEE-SA
>President, regarding the IEEE-SA/ISTO issue.
>
>I solicit your comments and suggestions. In particular, I would be glad to
>convey a response to this memo from the SAB, LMSC, or 802.16 to the IEEE-SA
>Board of Governors (of which I am a member).
>
>Regards,
>Steve Diamond
>CS VP for Standards Activities
>CS Second VP
>
>----------
>
>29 August 2000
>
>To: IEEE-SA BoG, IEEE-ISTO BoD, and IEEE SASB
>From: Don Loughry, IEEE-SA President
> Marco Migliaro, IEEE-ISTO BoD Chairperson
>Subject: Relationships between IEEE-ISTO and IEEE-SA
>
>
>Several events have transpired throughout July and August that merit an
>update on current discussions, progress to date, and future actions of those
>involved. The IEEE-ISTO press release on the BWIF Program, dated 11 July and
>the IEEE Project 802 Position Statement about the IEEE-ISTO dated 15 July
>have indicated the need for clarification concerning how the IEEE-ISTO and
>the IEEE-SA relate to one another on standards activities.
>
>Informal discussions have taken place with key IEEE leadership: Dan Senese,
>IEEE Executive Director, Bruce Eisenstein, IEEE President as well as members
>and leadership of the IEEE-SA, IEEE-ISTO BoD, and Standards Staff. Further,
>a teleconference on 25 August between us with Andy Salem, Peter Lefkin, and
>Judy Gorman participating as well has helped to clarify further the key
>matters of interest.
>
>There is considerable interest in addressing the issues related to the IEEE
>standards activities, in particular the procedures (guidelines) that
>facilitate them. There is general consensus that the terminology used to
>identify the respective products, programs and services could stand some
>clarification to avoid confusion by members of industry, our primary
>customers. Of equal interest is the need to avoid confusion over projects
>approved and launched by the two entities.
>
>It is the intention of the IEEE-ISTO and IEEE-SA leadership to put in place
>a few simple and general high-level guidelines (with appropriate
>consideration for the legal issues) to avoid the types of issues that have
>arisen over the past two months. We believe this can be accomplished
>shortly, certainly this year. Consideration is being given by the IEEE-ISTO
>BoD to find a term that uniquely identifies their program output products
>and clearly distinguishes them from those of the IEEE-SA. Further, it should
>be noted that the concerns being discussed are primarily within the IEEE
>itself and not for decision by any relevant industry forums, consortia, and
>support groups.
>
>We trust this message, while not offering detailed and explicit solutions,
>does indicate the commitment and intention to resolve the issues that have
>arisen this summer. You will be hearing from us again with more specific
>action plans.