Re: [802SEC] Potential EC Motion
Steve,
I wholeheartedly disagree with your position. Let me restate why, in summary.
The 19 November 2004 EC vote to insert the coexistence requirement
into the P&P did NOT have sufficient support to lead to a P&P change.
During that 19 November 2004 meeting, a ruling was made that the
motion had passed. Bob O'Hara argues strongly that the motion did not
pass, based on the text that existed in the printed P&P at that time.
I agree with Bob.
Some people might argue that there is room to disagree with Bob's
interpretation because of a possible ambiguity in the _printed_ rules
that existed at the time. However, THOSE PRINTED RULES WERE ERRONEOUS
AND ARE INAPPLICABLE. The true P&P language applicable to any P&P
change decision of 19 November 2004 was defined by the authorized
vote of 14 March 2003. According to those true P&P, the voting
requirement in effect on 19 November 2004 was "the affirmative vote
of at least two thirds of all Executive Committee members with voting
rights." Under the P&P that existed at the time, the P&P change was,
unambiguously, not approved.
Roger
At 03:11 PM -0800 06/03/18, Bob O'Hara (boohara) wrote:
>Steve,
>
>I still have to disagree with you that the motion passed in November
>2004. Even if the wording was to count only those EC members who voted,
>the tally ("Result: 8/2/5") shows that 15 EC members voted. Two thirds
>of those 15 voters, or 10 voters, would need to vote in favor of the
>motion for it to pass. Consequently, the motion failed, without regard
>to what was recorded in the minutes or the ruling by the chair.
>
>I believe we need Paul to participate in this thread and to say that the
>motion actually failed. The result should be that the text currently in
>the P&P should be immediately removed. A new P&P change process would
>need to be started, in order to include the text in some future update
>of the P&P.
>
> -Bob
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: ***** IEEE 802 Executive Committee List *****
>[mailto:STDS-802-SEC@ieee.org] On Behalf Of Shellhammer, Steve
>Sent: Saturday, March 18, 2006 2:39 PM
>To: STDS-802-SEC@listserv.ieee.org
>Subject: Re: [802SEC] Potential EC Motion
>
>Hi Bill,
>
> Actually the motion passed as was recorded in the minutes. We
>had a discussion of the rules at the time and the interpretation was, as
>is stated in the rules at that time, the motion required 2/3 of the EC
>members who voted.
>
> By the way, the minutes of that meeting were approved over a
>year ago at the March 2005 meeting.
>
> Now that the rules have been modified any new motion would
>require 2/3 of all EC members.
>
>Regards,
>Steve
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: ***** IEEE 802 Executive Committee List *****
>[mailto:STDS-802-SEC@ieee.org] On Behalf Of Bill Quackenbush
>Sent: Friday, March 17, 2006 9:48 PM
>To: STDS-802-SEC@listserv.ieee.org
>Subject: Re: [802SEC] Potential EC Motion
>
>Roger, et al,
>
>Having been present at the 3/14/03 EC meeting and being the one that
>requested the instruction "to change the text 'all voting members of the
>Executive Committee' to 'all Executive Committee members with voting
>rights' in
>clauses 3.6.2 and 3.6.5" be included the motion, I believe that Roger's
>reconstruction of the events is correct.
>
>I requested the instruction be included to eliminate the potential
>ambiguity of the phrase 'all voting members of the Executive Committee'
>that occurred 4 times in sections 3.6.2 and 3.6.5 of the text that Mat
>presented for approval. The subsequent editing of the P&P text to
>incorporate the approved changes was incomplete resulting in the
>ambiguous phrase 'two thirds of all voting Executive Committee members
>with voting rights' appearing in the second paragraph of section 3.6.5
>as Roger has observed.
>
>So it appears to me that the question is what is the status of
>unapproved text in the published version of the P&P. Does the
>unapproved text acquire standing and take precedence over the approved
>text because the unapproved text was published or does only approved
>text have standing?
>
>Best regards,
>
>Bill Q.
>
>"Roger B. Marks" wrote:
>>
>> I've done a little research as to how the 2/3 rule has evolved. Kind
>> of long, but interesting.
>>
>> The "old" rule (valid up through at least the JULY 12, 2002 revision)
>said:
>>
>> "LMSC approval shall require the affirmative vote of at least two
>> thirds of all voting members of the Executive Committee."
>>
>> At the SEC meeting of 14 March 2003, we were presented with a ballot
>> resolution that would change the text to:
>>
>> "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 members of the Executive Committee."
>>
>> However, the EC appears to have been concerned about possible
>> ambiguity here, because it approved the rule change with a
>> modification:
>>
>> "Motion: to approve the rule change for SEC Electronic Ballots with
>> instruction to change the text 'all voting members of the Executive
>> Committee' to 'all Executive Committee members with voting rights' in
>> clauses 3.6.2 and 3.6.5. Moved: Mat Sherman/Buzz Rigsbee Passes:
>> 10/0/2". [The text under discussion was in 3.6.5]
>>
>> So, by my reckoning, the rule became:
>>
>> "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 Executive Committee members with voting rights."
>>
>> There is a problem, however. The P&P issued as effective MARCH 14,
>> 2003 says the following:
>>
>> "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."
>>
>> As you can see, whoever edited the rules change forgot to delete the
>> first instance of the word "voting". Therefore, the ambiguity that
>> the SEC sought to remove remained in the P&P. The erroneous text
>> remained through 2004.
>>
>> The situation cleared again in the MARCH 21, 2005 revision:
>> "LMSC approval of the revised text of the proposed P&P revision shall
>> require the affirmative vote of at least two-thirds of all EC members
>> with voting rights (regardless of whether they are present)."
>>
>> which is where we stand today.
>>
>> Fascinating history.
>>
>> To me, the application of the CA issue is clear. To Bob O'Hara, our
>> resident parliamentarian, the denominator [using the language in the
>> P&P at the time] includes abstains. There seems to be some
>> disagreement about this interpretation. However, there is only one
>> possible interpretation of the rule that was actually in force -
>> although not stated corrected in the P&P. Under the rule that was in
>> force, the coexistence text was NOT approved.
>>
>> Roger
>>
>> At 04:01 PM -0800 06/03/16, Bob O'Hara (boohara) wrote:
>> >Pat,
>> >
>> >The wording of the proportion required for approval is the same in
>both
>> >the November 2004 and current P&P. I believe that the quote from the
>> >P&P "two thirds of all voting EC members
>> >with voting rights" is pretty clearly stating that the denominator is
>to
>> >be the total number of votes (Y + N + abstain). If this were not the
>> >requirement, the statement would be that a "2/3 majority" is required
>> >for approval.
>> >
>> >So, I stand by my earlier interpretation that the motion actually
>failed
>> >in November.
>> >
>> >
>> > -Bob
>> >
>> >-----Original Message-----
>> >From: STDS-802-SEC@ieee.org [mailto:STDS-802-SEC@ieee.org] On Behalf
>Of
>> >Pat Thaler
>> >Sent: Thursday, March 16, 2006 3:56 PM
>> >To: STDS-802-SEC@listserv.ieee.org
>> >Subject: Re: [802SEC] Potential EC Motion
>> >
>> >Steve,
>> >
>> >Thanks, I would read that old text "two thirds of all voting EC
>members
>> >with voting rights" to mean yes votes are at least 2/3 of yes plus no
>> >votes. In Robert's Rules, an abstain normally isn't a vote, we
>usually
>> >use y/(y+n) and we are usually very careful to state when we are
>> >requiring a vote of y over total voting membership.
>> >
>> >Pat
>> >
>> >-----Original Message-----
>> >From: Shellhammer, Steve [mailto:sshellha@qualcomm.com]
> > >Sent: Thursday, March 16, 2006 3:31 PM
>> >To: Pat Thaler; ***** IEEE 802 Executive Committee List *****;
>> >STDS-802-SEC@listserv.ieee.org
>> >Subject: RE: [802SEC] Potential EC Motion
>> >
>> >Pat,
>> >
>> > I was actually quoting from the November 2004 rules, which I
>> >happened to have on my PC. It is attached. I think I had that one
>> >around since I was participating in making rules changes back then.
>Boy
>> >the good old days. :)
>> >
>> > Looks like the current rules have been clarified.
>> >
>> >Regards,
>> >Steve
>> >
>> >-----Original Message-----
>> >From: Pat Thaler [mailto:pthaler@broadcom.com]
>> >Sent: Thursday, March 16, 2006 3:17 PM
>> >To: ***** IEEE 802 Executive Committee List *****; Shellhammer,
>Steve;
>> >STDS-802-SEC@listserv.ieee.org
>> >Subject: 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.