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
I'm changing my vote to "Disapprove" in support of Carl's comments below. I
believe the problem could be fixed either by striking the offending text or
by re-wording it to make it clear that some (but not not all) 802 WGs
consider the ISO label to be desirable in the markets that they serve.
Regards,
Tony
At 01:55 09/09/2006, Carl R. Stevenson wrote:
>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.
----------
This email is sent from the 802 Executive Committee email reflector. This list is maintained by Listserv.