Re: [802SEC] Potential EC Motion
Steve,
I don't see the text you quote in our current P&P. Are you quoting from
the version in effect at the time of the rules change. (I recall that we
have had a rules change on the rules change section so this change may
not have been done under the current P&P.)
In the current P&P, I see two meeting votes on a rules change:
One to send it out for ballot requiring "the affirmative vote of at
least two-thirds of Committee members with voting rights who vote to
approve or disapprove". That is clear even if wordy - pass criteria is
Y/(Y+N).
One for final approval of the change which requires "the affirmative
vote of at least two-thirds of all EC members with voting rights
(regardless of whether they are present)." That is clearly Y/(total
number of EC members with voting rights) even if they don't vote or even
aren't present.
Pat
-----Original Message-----
From: ***** IEEE 802 Executive Committee List *****
[mailto:STDS-802-SEC@ieee.org] On Behalf Of Shellhammer, Steve
Sent: Thursday, March 16, 2006 2:41 PM
To: STDS-802-SEC@listserv.ieee.org
Subject: Re: [802SEC] Potential EC Motion
It sounds like the idea of the motion is not the correct procedure so I
will not bring such a motion to the EC. Guess we will stick with Paul's
interpretation.
In terms of the original motion to make the rules change the 802 P&P
states
"LMSC approval of the revised text of the proposed Policies and
Procedures change shall require the affirmative vote of at least two
thirds of all voting Executive Committee members with voting rights."
The motion passed based on having at least two thirds affirmative of
"voting EC members with voting rights." I assume that "voting EC
members" means those EC members that voted. By the way, who writes this
stuff? :)
I think adding a definitions section to the rules and clarifying
these ambiguous rules is worth doing.
Steve
-----Original Message-----
From: ***** IEEE 802 Executive Committee List *****
[mailto:STDS-802-SEC@ieee.org] On Behalf Of Bob O'Hara (boohara)
Sent: Thursday, March 16, 2006 2:27 PM
To: STDS-802-SEC@listserv.ieee.org
Subject: Re: [802SEC] Potential EC Motion
From a parliamentary procedure point of view, I would have to agree with
Roger that having a motion have the same effect as our Policies and
Procedures is not the correct thing to do. If the point of the new
procedure was supposed to be that all work, including that already
established before the adoption of the new procedure, was to be affected
by the new procedure, the new procedure should have stated that. Since
it didn't include such language and specifically describes the use of
the five criteria document as part of the procedure, it clearly exempts
those projects that existed prior to the adoption of the new procedure
from the needing to implement that procedure.
Regarding Roger's question as to whether the motion establishing this
procedure actually passed, I can't be certain. According to the current
P&P, 2/3 of all EC members with voting rights must approve a P&P change.
By this measure, the motion did not pass, achieving only 8/15 approval.
However, I don't know if the language of this clause (7.1.5.4) has
changed since the November 2004 session.
-Bob
-----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 1:25 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.
----------
This email is sent from the 802 Executive Committee email reflector. This list is maintained by Listserv.