[802SEC] FW: [802SEC] Potential EC Motion
Resending because my reply below was rejected as "too identical" to Roger's
comments.
Carl
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Carl R. Stevenson [mailto:wk3c@wk3c.com]
> Sent: Thursday, March 16, 2006 4:12 PM
> To: '***** IEEE 802 Executive Committee List *****'; 'Roger
> B. Marks'; STDS-802-SEC@listserv.ieee.org
> Subject: 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.
>
----------
This email is sent from the 802 Executive Committee email reflector. This list is maintained by Listserv.