Re: [802SEC] 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
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Andrew Myles (amyles) [mailto:amyles@cisco.com]
> Sent: Saturday, September 09, 2006 8:46 AM
> To: wk3c@WK3C.COM; Paul Nikolich; STDS-802-SEC@listserv.ieee.org
> Subject: RE: [802SEC] 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
>
> G'day Carl,
>
> Apologies for mis-spelling you name, although the history
> page will be removed from the final deck. Do you realise you
> misspelt mine too? ;)
Andrew,
I hope you noticed the "smiley" :-) on that comment ... And turnabout is
fair play, though honestly I actually didn't misspell your name
intentionally :-)
With regard to the rest of your comments, please afford me some time to
consider them and my response ... I still think the language will create
problems, despite your best intentions, by reinforcing the idea that IEEE
802 (and maybe other groups in IEEE-SA "need" to go through ISO/IEC to be
credible international standards, but I will consider your comments and
probably propose some wording changes to mitigate the problem.
Regards,
Carl
> You state that you believe slide 9 makes assertions that are
> counter to the "IEEE-SA goals to be postured as a truly
> international SDO". In contrast, I believe the assertions on
> slide 9 are orthogonal to this goal.
>
> It is true that IEEE-SA have such a goal, and I personally
> agree that it is a very worthy goal. However, the reality
> today is the WAPI debate showed many ISO/IEC National Bodies
> (including many "friendly" National
> Bodies) do not believe that IEEE is "international". They
> believe it is a US-centric organisation. It is also the case
> that the IEEE are not listed in most recognised lists of
> "international" standards bodies, although interestingly the
> IETF is listed. The behaviour of IEEE 802 itself,
> particularly in relation to non-North American meetings,
> often provides ample evidence that the organisation is
> sometimes not very "international".
>
> Until the IEEE-SA goal of universal recognition as an "international"
> standards body is reached at some future time, a mechanism is
> required to defend 802.x standards in issues similar to the
> WAPI dispute in 2004.
> Note that one part of the successful argument against the
> mandating of WAPI in China in 2004 was that we could claim
> IEEE 802.11 was an "international" standard based on its
> ISO/IEC 8802-11 standardisation.
>
> The 8802-1 agreement, if properly written, will provide an
> insurance policy against further WAPI-like issues. Like all
> insurance policies, we can decide not to make a claim but it
> is there just in case. Hopefully, a well written 8802-1
> agreement will also allow us to avoid spending the millions
> of dollars that was required to defend 802.11 against WAPI in
> 2004 and 2006. An agreement that only leads to "endorsement"
> is not enough. An agreement that leads to standardisation by
> ISO/IEC of
> (selected) IEEE 802.x standard will allow IEEE the
> flexibility to take this step when desired/required. Of
> course issues like IPR, copyright and maintenance
> responsibility need to be sorted out too.
>
> That all said, what slide 9 actually says is as follows:
>
> * 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
>
> In other words, it is not claiming that IEEE standards are
> not "international", just that there potentially is some
> doubt today, particularly in comparison with ISO/IEC
> standards. Do you agree?
>
> There are two ways to overcome this doubt. In the long term,
> we need to ensure the IEEE does whatever is necessary to make
> it a recognised "international" standards body. This is the
> IEEE-SA goal. In the short term, we need to other mechanisms.
> One possible mechanism is this proposed process and agreement
> with ISO/IEC.
>
> A number of 802 WG already pursue ISO/IEC standardisation
> using the ISO/IEC JTC1 Fast Track Mechanism. Clearly these
> WG's value international standardisation. Slide 9 is simply
> reflecting that value.
>
> Could you agree that it is a reasonable idea for at least
> some 802 WGs that international standardisation using ISO/IEC
> is a reasonable goal, as a way of avoiding any doubt while
> IEEE moves towards universal recognition as an international
> SDO? If so, could you suggest some new words that modify
> those above and reflect this idea?
>
> Andrew
>
> BTW I will remove the words "position statement"
>
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-stds-802-sec@IEEE.ORG [mailto:owner-stds-802-sec@IEEE.ORG]
> On Behalf Of Carl R. Stevenson
> Sent: Saturday, 9 September 2006 10:56 AM
> To: 'Paul Nikolich'; STDS-802-SEC@listserv.ieee.org
> Subject: [802SEC] 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
> Importance: High
>
> 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.