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

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



"Responds to Inquiry" along with appropriate "disclaimer boilerplate" would,
I think, resolve the "P-word" issue ...

However, I still will vote DISAPPROVE on the basis of the offending text on
slide 9.

I don't believe that 802 should be sending messages that I believe are
counter to IEEE-SA goals.

Regards,
Carl
 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Paul Nikolich [mailto:paul.nikolich@att.net] 
> Sent: Friday, September 08, 2006 9:00 PM
> To: wk3c@wk3c.com; 'Paul Nikolich'; STDS-802-SEC@listserv.ieee.org
> 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
> 
> 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.