Re: [802SEC] +++EC Email ballot (closes no later than 17SEP2006)+++ Motion to approve the attached EC position statement regarding the SC6 review of 8802-1
Carl,
On your comment regarding 'position statement' I believe you are correct.
Since this document is a response to a specific request from SC6, we should
label it appropriately. I am open for suggestions. Perhaps a simple label
such as 'response to inquiry' would be sufficient?
Regards,
--Paul
----- Original Message -----
From: "Carl R. Stevenson" <wk3c@wk3c.com>
To: "'Paul Nikolich'" <p.nikolich@ieee.org>;
<STDS-802-SEC@listserv.ieee.org>
Sent: Friday, September 08, 2006 8:55 PM
Subject: RE: [802SEC] +++EC Email ballot (closes no later than 17SEP2006)+++
Motion to approve the attached EC position statement regarding the SC6
review of 8802-1
> DISAPPROVE - (most strenuously!) (With all due respect to Andrew Miles
> and
> the effort he's expended.)
>
> In addition to wanting my name spelled correctly in the revisions list :-)
> I have the following problem:
>
> The text on slide 9 - "802 wants an 8802-x version of 802.x standards to
> enable the widest acceptance
> The WTO and other organisations give special status to "international
> standards", particularly in trade
> The definition of an "international standard" is not always clear
> It is even possible that IEEE 802.x standards may qualify as
> "international
> standards", but this is untested
> However, an ISO/IEC standard is well accepted as an international standard
> Therefore, a benefit for 802 of any relationship with ISO/IEC is a
> mechanism
> to gain certain "international standard" status for IEEE 802.x standards"
>
> is, in my opinion as a member of the SA BoG, counter to IEEE-SA goals to
> be
> postured as a truly international SDO.
>
> Since IEEE has been recognized with Sector Memberships in ITU in the same
> category with ("on equal status with") ISO, I think that the entire
> message
> that this text sends that we (IEEE-SA) somehow "need" ISO to achieve
> international status for/acceptance of our standars is inaccurate and
> damaging to the goals of IEEE-SA as I understand them.
>
> I would also point out that 802.16 has been meeting with quite a bit of
> success in getting their standards recognized internationally by
> incorporation of references thereto in ITU Recommendations and other
> documents.
>
> Thus, while I have no problem with WGs that might *want* to work
> cooperatively with ISO/IEC, I *do* have a problem with the way the
> offending
> text implies that working through ISO/IEC is in *any* way *necessary* for
> IEEE Standards to gain international status and acceptance.
>
> I urge all of my colleagues on the EC to join me in voting DISAPPROVE
> until
> this problem has been rectified.
>
> I think the document could (and does) suggest ways to work with ISO/IEC
> *without* the inclusion of the offending text/concepts.
>
> Finally, it is my understanding that "Position Statements" to outside
> entities require higher approval in IEEE than the 802 EC ... That is why
> 802.18 has "disclaimer boilerplate" in its regulatory filings and is
> careful
> to avoid the use of the "P-word" ...
>
> Regards,
> Carl R. Stevenson
> President and Chief Technology Officer
> WK3C Wireless LLC
> Where wireless is a passion, as well as a profession (SM)
> ----------------------------
> Wireless Standards, Regulatory & Design Consulting Services
> 4991 Shimerville Road
> Emmaus, PA 18049-4955 USA
> cellular: +1 610 841 6180 (normally best means of contact)
> voip: +1 610 624 3755 ("SkypeIn" when on-line - particularly outside
> of
> US)
> phone: +1 610 965 8799 (backup - least reliable, slowest response)
> fax: +1 484 214 0204 (e-Fax to my e-mail account)
> e-mail: wk3c@wk3c.com
> web: http://www.wk3c.com
>
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: ***** IEEE 802 Executive Committee List *****
>> [mailto:STDS-802-SEC@ieee.org] On Behalf Of Paul Nikolich
>> Sent: Friday, September 08, 2006 4:09 PM
>> To: STDS-802-SEC@listserv.ieee.org
>> Subject: [802SEC] +++EC Email ballot (closes no later than
>> 17SEP2006)+++ Motion to approve the attached EC position
>> statement regarding the SC6 review of 8802-1
>>
>> Dear EC Members,
>>
>> Per the below email I sent you last Friday
>> (http://www.ieee802.org/secmail/msg08457.html) , a revised
>> version of the IEEE 802 position statement on the review of
>> the 8802-1 and related documents by SC6 is attached for EC approval.
>>
>> Motion: The 802 LMSC EC resolves to adopt the attached
>> position statement (appropriately edited to remove the
>> "DRAFT" and "Change History" text) Moved-Tony Jeffree
>> Seconded-Mat Sherman
>>
>> Please cast your vote as soon as possible. The ballot closes
>> the earlier of either 17 Sept 2006 or 24 hours after every EC
>> member has cast a vote.
>>
>> Regards,
>>
>> --Paul Nikolich
>>
>>
>>
>> To: STDS-802-SEC@listserv.ieee.org
>> Subject: [802SEC] request for input from 802 EC members
>> regarding 8802-1 review
>> From: Paul Nikolich <paul.nikolich@ATT.NET>
>> Date: Fri, 1 Sep 2006 11:40:57 -0400
>>
>> --------------------------------------------------------------
>> ------------------
>>
>> Dear EC Members,
>>
>> In an e-mail sent to this reflector two weeks ago a process
>> was outlined to develop an IEEE 802 LMSC position on
>> potential revisions to ISO/IEC TR 8802-1:2001, which
>> documents a cooperation process between IEEE 802 LMSC and
>> ISO/IEC JTC1/SC6/WG1.
>>
>> Since that time a small group has contributed to a draft
>> position IEEE 802 LMSC statement for submission to Robin
>> Tasker (editor of 8802-1) by 27 Sept 06. Andrew Myles
>> coordinated the activity and developed the draft position
>> statement in the attached powerpoint document. Contributions
>> were received from Geoff Thompson, Steve Mills, Pat Thaler,
>> David Law, Andrew Myles, Gary Robinson, Bob Pritchard and
>> Paul Nikolich. The draft position does not necessarily
>> represent the views of all contributors.
>>
>> The original plan was to have a teleconference next week to
>> discuss the position statement. However, the lack of response
>> from the EC (and, presumably, their WG/TAG membership)
>> suggests this is probably not a useful exercise. The lack of
>> response is not surprising because, although the the
>> relationship with ISO/IEC is important, it is "esoteric
>> standards work", orthogonal to the interests of most Working
>> Group members.
>>
>> A slightly modified process to approve this document will now
>> be followed:
>>
>> a.. The draft position statement is attached to this e-mail
>> for comments by the 802 EC. Comments should be sent to the
>> 802 EC reflector and cc'ed to Andrew Myles
>> (andrew.myles@cisco.com). The closing date for comments is
>> 5pm ET on Thursday, 7 Sept 06.
>> b.. Andrew Myles will generate an updated version of the
>> draft position statement based on these comments by 7am ET on
>> Friday, 8 Sept 06.
>> c.. The 8 Sept 06 version will be sent out for EC approval
>> via an 802 EC e-mail ballot on 8 Sept 06. The ballot will
>> close on 17 Sept 06.
>> d.. If the EC ballot fails, Andrew Myles will make further
>> changes early in the week during the IEEE 802.11 WG interim
>> session in Melbourne and a second 802 EC e-mail ballot will
>> be issued with a closing date of 26 Sept 06.
>> e.. I want to avoid a second EC e-mail ballot--hence the
>> 1-7 Sept comment period--please, please, please provide your
>> input prior to 5 pm ET 7 Sept 06.
>> f.. Assuming a position statement is approved, it will be
>> sent to Robin Tasker on 26 Sept 06.
>> Andrew Myles is available to discuss the draft position
>> statement at any time after 5am (3pm ET) any day next week on
>> +61 2 84461010 (W) or +61 418
>> 656587 (M).
>>
>> ----------
>> 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.