Thread Links Date Links
Thread Prev Thread Next Thread Index Date Prev Date Next Date Index

Re: [802SEC] Potential EC Motion



While I am all for coexistence, I have to agree with Roger's arguments and
questions.

Carl
 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: ***** IEEE 802 Executive Committee List ***** 
> [mailto:STDS-802-SEC@ieee.org] On Behalf Of Roger B. Marks
> Sent: Thursday, March 16, 2006 4:25 PM
> To: STDS-802-SEC@listserv.ieee.org
> Subject: Re: [802SEC] Potential EC Motion
> 
> Steve,
> 
> I would be opposed to this motion on coexistence assurance, 
> for the following reasons:
> 
> (1) The proposed motion seeks to, in effect, impose a new 
> rule on WGs. Our rules are defined not by motion of the EC 
> but by the P&P. If someone wants to impose a new rule, they 
> ought to be proposing a P&P change, not a motion. If an 
> approved motion has the status of a rule, then our process is broken.
> 
> (2) The proposed motion (if approved and enforced) would be 
> adding a completely new rule, not interpreting an existing 
> rule. The existing P&P says:
> 
> *21 [Procedure for Coexistence Assurance] "If indicated in 
> the five criteria, the wireless working group shall produce a 
> coexistence assurance (CA) document in the process of 
> preparing for working group letter ballot and Sponsor ballot."
> 
> The projects subject to this motion do NOT indicate in their 
> Five Criteria that a CA document will be produced. The 
> language of Procedure 21 is clear. It does NOT apply to those 
> projects.
> 
> (3) The proposed motion is out of character with the existing rule. 
> The existing P&P, as part of the Five Criteria language, says:
> 
> *17.5.4.1 "A working group proposing a wireless project is 
> required to demonstrate coexistence through the preparation 
> of a Coexistence Assurance (CA) document unless it is not 
> applicable... If the Working Group elects not to create a CA 
> document, it will explain to the EC the reason the CA 
> document is not applicable."
> 
> In other words, for future projects, the existing P&P 
> acknowledges that a CA document may or may not be applicable 
> to wireless projects, leaving the WG with the opportunity to 
> argue a position. The proposed motion would have the EC jump 
> to its own conclusion that a CA document is applicable to all 
> of the pre-existing projects.
> 
> 
> On a related issue: I would like to better understand how the 
> CA got into the P&P in the first place. The minutes of the EC 
> meeting of Friday 19 November 19 2004 state, under item 
> 10.06: "Motion: to amend the 802 P&P by applying document 
> 19-04/0032r3 to the 802 P&P. Moved: 
> Shellhammer/Sherman  Result: 8/2/5 Passes." However, I 
> question whether a vote of 8/2/5 was sufficient to pass the 
> motion. In my understanding, a change of P&P requires 
> approval of 2/3 of the EC. 
> Perhaps someone can explain the grounds for ruling that the 
> motion was carried.
> 
> Regards,
> 
> Roger
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> At 11:47 AM -0800 06/03/16, Shellhammer, Steve wrote:
> >IEEE 802 EC,
> >
> >
> >
> >             I have modified the motion that Ajay made at the Friday 
> >closing plenary, with the intent to see if it is possible to 
> come to an 
> >agreement on text that would be acceptable to the executive 
> committee.
> >I will take comments on this text and if we can agree on the text I 
> >will run an electronic EC ballot on the resulting text, with Paul's 
> >permission.
> >
> >
> >
> >             Here is the text I drafted based on what I 
> received from 
> >Ajay.  Please send me and the rest of the EC your comments.
> >
> >
> >
> >CA Motion
> >
> >Any wireless project intended for unlicensed operation, that could 
> >potentially cause interference to an 802 wireless standard, 
> and whose 
> >PAR was approved prior to November 2004 and begins working 
> group letter 
> >ballot after November 2004 shall produce a coexistence assurance 
> >document and distribute that CA document with working group letter 
> >ballot and Sponsor ballot.
> >
> >
> >
> >Regards,
> >
> >Steve
> >
> >
> 
> ----------
> This email is sent from the 802 Executive Committee email 
> reflector.  This list is maintained by Listserv.
> 

----------
This email is sent from the 802 Executive Committee email reflector.  This list is maintained by Listserv.