Re: [802SEC] forwarding the amended 802.16m PAR to NesCom
Bob (O'Hara), et al,
I am inserting content from another e-mail to me from Bob O'Hara (in this
green text, hoping that at least most can receive HTML e-mail that will show
the green text for context) in the interest of consolidating this discussion
in one (hopefully) more coherent thread ...
Carl,
I wonder what P&P you are reading. I can find no limitation such as you
describe below, that requires that PARs "are considered by the EC *at
plenary sessions* - PERIOD". In fact, the only reference to when a PAR can
be considered is a restriction on when it can NOT be considered.
The following sentence is from the fourth paragraph of clause 17, Procedure
for PARs:
"It will be assumed that insufficient coordination and/or inter Working
Group consideration had occurred prior to the submission of the PAR if this
deadline is not met, and the proposed PAR will not be considered by the
Executive Committee at the closing Executive Committee meeting."
The section quoted immediately above, on its face, clearly indicates that
PARs are "considered at the closing Executive Committe meeting" - it does
not provide for, or even alude to (nor does any other section of the P&P),
any alternative means of considering PARs ... and I am unaware of any
instance where a PAR was considered and/or approved other than at the
closing Executive Committee meeting at a plenary session.
I further retiterate my concern, stated below in this e-mail thread, that
"approving PARs via electronic ballot outside of a plenary session would set
an undesirable precedent and put us on a slippery slope that would
effectively circumvent the long-established PAR approval process, which I
believe is designed to assure that PARs are dealt with in an open and
transparent manner that affords all interested parties due process."
The only requirement for consideration of a PAR by the EC is that it must
have met the WG/TAG coordination requirements (as well as meeting the 30-day
advance circulation requirement).
I disagree - as I elaborate herein, a plain reading of the explicit text of
the P&P clearly indicates that PARs and Drafts are only considered for
approval (and with exceptional voting requirements) "at meetings" per
7.1.3.3 (see elaboration below)
So, while your statements below may be reason for you to vote against the
motion at the EC, there is no support there for you, at either NesCom or the
SB, to speak against the PAR as being approved in violation of any of our
P&P. If you believe there is support for your position in the P&P, please
quote the appropriate text for us.
I disagree ... and cite a number of salient points:
Section 7.1.3.3 of the P&P "Voting at Meetings" specifically states that
"Approval of PARs and Drafts for forwarding to IEEE-SA shall require
approval by a majority of EC members present with voting rights" (emphais
added) Since the topic of this section is "Voting at Meetings" it clearly
indicates that such approvals will take place at meetings. Also, I fail to
see how a member can be "present" in an electronic ballot (clearly, one can
participate in an electronic ballot, but "presence" by its definition
indicates presence/participation in a face to face meeting). Thus, it is
clear to me that PARs and Drafts can, per the P&P, only be approved for
forwarding to IEEE-SA (or its committees) by a face to face EC meeting
(which only occur at plenary sessions).
Furthermore, the section on "Electronic Balloting" (7.1.3.4) is limited to
"decision(s) that cannot be made prior to the close of one plenary but must
be made prior to the opening of the following plenary" (emphasis added). I
think it's abundantly clear that this provision only addresses exceptional
circumstances with a compelling need (historically, per my experience,
financial matters that must be dealt with to meet contractual obligations
and regulatory filings with pressing and set deadlines). It also requires
that "all comments from those who are not members of the EC shall be
considered." I fail to see how this latter requirement can be met with a
"short-fuse" EC electronic ballot, given the fact that we are in the midst
of the holiday season and it is reasonable to assume that a large percentage
of the interested 802 constituency are unlikely to be following this
issue/debate.
Given the long timeframe for ITU even defining the requirements for
IMT-Advanced, I don't believe that there is a compelling argument that the
subject PAR must be approved prior to the next plenary. This in itself (the
lack of compelling necessity) would, per the explicit wording of the P&P,
preclude the approval of the subject PAR by EC electronic ballot under
7.1.3.4, since it is clear from the language of 7.1.3.4 that the provision
for electronic EC ballots is intended to be limited to exceptional cases
based on a clear necessity.
Given that 17.1 of the P&P states that "Any standards activity whose aim is
to produce a Standard, Recommended Practice, or Guide must submit a PAR to
the IEEE-SA Standards Board within six months of beginning work." I don't
believe that 802.16 is precluded from "beginning work" in the area of
IMT-Advanced - work can begin, with a PAR following from the March 2007
plenary (I see no reason that the PAR cannot be "adjusted" to eliminate any
objections to its approval then), thus there is no clear necessity for the
immediate approval of a PAR that is still the subject of unresolved
controversy as expressed by the written concerns of several WGs, several
individuals, the concerns expressed verbally by several speakers from the
floor at the November 200 closing EC meeting, and the procedural issues that
have been raised.
Therefore, I maintain that approval of the subject PAR (or any other PAR)
other than at the closing EC meeting at a plenary session is contrary to the
P&P and I reserve the right to speak against the approval of the PAR at
NesCom and/or the SASB on that basis.
In closing, I reiterate my point that I making such a fuss only because I
object to the way in which the EC, or at least some portion of it, seems
inclined to selectively apply our rules in the most restrictive possible
manner in the name of "the integrity of the process" in some instances, but
NOT to apply the rules equally in other instances (the particulars seem to
me, from my observation, to depend upon which interests are involved), and I
think that that has to stop.
Regards,
Carl
_____
From: Bob O'Hara (boohara) [mailto:boohara@cisco.com]
Sent: Wednesday, November 22, 2006 3:24 PM
To: Shellhammer, Steve; wk3c@wk3c.com; Paul Nikolich; Roger B. Marks; Tony
Jeffree
Cc: Vivek Gupta; Stuart J. Kerry; Michael Lynch; Sherman Matthew; John
Hawkins; Geoff Thompson; Everett O Rigsbee; Carl Stevenson;
bob.grow@ieee.org; Bob O'Hara; Bob Heile; Pat Thaler; Mike Takefman (tak);
a.greenspan@ieee.org; STDS-802-SEC@ieee.org
Subject: RE: forwarding the amended 802.16m PAR to NesCom
Steve,
What the heck does this have to say about when a PAR motion can be
considered? The only requirement stated here is the number of votes
required to approve a PAR. See my earlier email on Carl's point, as well.
-Bob
_____
From: Shellhammer, Steve [mailto:sshellha@qualcomm.com]
Sent: Wednesday, November 22, 2006 12:12 PM
To: wk3c@wk3c.com; Paul Nikolich; Roger B. Marks; Tony Jeffree
Cc: Vivek Gupta; Stuart J. Kerry; Michael Lynch; Sherman Matthew; John
Hawkins; Geoff Thompson; Everett O Rigsbee; Carl Stevenson;
bob.grow@ieee.org; Bob O'Hara; Bob Heile; Pat Thaler; Mike Takefman (tak);
a.greenspan@ieee.org; STDS-802-SEC@ieee.org
Subject: RE: forwarding the amended 802.16m PAR to NesCom
IEEE 802 EC,
I do not think the EC wants to add insult to injury. After all
that went on at the end of the closing EC meeting I do not think the EC
wants to attempt to sidestep the rule that PARs are approved at closing EC
meetings, and not though an electronic ballot.
For your reference, see Section 7.1.3.3 of the 802 P&P
7.1.3.3 Voting at Meetings
Except where otherwise noted in this P&P, approval of an EC motion is
achieved if a simple majority of EC members approve the motion
(approve/(approve + disapprove)). The LMSC Chair only votes if his vote can
change the outcome of a vote. Proxy voting is not permitted.
The following actions have exceptional voting requirements:
* Approval of PARs and Drafts for forwarding to IEEE-SA shall
require approval by a majority of EC members present with voting rights.
This motion is out of order. I call on the 802 chair to rule
the motion out of order.
Somehow, this procedure discussion got started on a private
email list. Since we are an open organization, I have copied the EC
reflector so the discussion is held in public.
Regards,
Steve
-----Original Message-----
From: Carl R Stevenson [mailto:wk3c@wk3c.com]
Sent: Wednesday, November 22, 2006 11:42 AM
To: 'Paul Nikolich'; 'Roger B. Marks'; 'Tony Jeffree'
Cc: 'Vivek Gupta'; 'Stuart J. Kerry'; Shellhammer, Steve; 'Michael Lynch';
'Sherman Matthew'; 'John Hawkins'; 'Geoff Thompson'; 'Everett O Rigsbee';
'Carl Stevenson'; bob.grow@ieee.org; 'Bob O'Hara'; 'Bob Heile'; 'Pat
Thaler'; 'Mike Takefman (tak)'; a.greenspan@ieee.org
Subject: RE: forwarding the amended 802.16m PAR to NesCom
Importance: High
Paul, et al,
Before Paul rules on this matter, as he indicated in his e-mail response to
Roger he would do by close of business today ...
I believe that, to be fair to Paul, Roger, and the other members of the EC,
you should know in advance that I object to any move to approve a PAR by
electronic ballot outside of a plenary session.
I also ask - actually insist - that any and all discussion - and certainly
any motions - regarding this matter be conducted in an open and transparent
manner on the EC reflector, rather than in the (figurative, but not intended
disrespectfully to anyone) "smoke-filled room" of a private distribution
list.
Furthermore, if the PAR *is* "approved" in this manner (via an EC electronic
ballot outside of a face to face EC meeting at a plenary session), I will
speak against the approval of the PAR at NESCOM and the SASB on the grounds
that 802 didn't follow its own P&P.
My reason for this position is that the 802 P&P is CLEAR that PARs are
considered by the EC *at plenary sessions* - PERIOD. That's why the 30 day
presubmission, the Tue/Wed comment/reply deadlines, and other
provisions/requirements exist. To approve some altered version now, after
the close of the plenary session, by electronic ballot not only would be in
violation of our P&P but would also deny the other WGs the opportunity to
review and comment on whether any changes statisfy their concerns (there
were concerns from several WGs and individuals and in the interest of due
process they should not be ignored or side-stepped ).
I am concerned that approving PARs via electronic ballot outside of a
plenary session would set an undesirable precedent and put us on a slippery
slope that would effectively circumvent the long-established PAR approval
process, which I believe is designed to assure that PARs are dealt with in
an open and transparent manner that affords all interested parties due
process.
I would also note several additional procedural issues with respect to this
matter, since equal and consistent adherence to process is my main issue:
1) the PAR document submitted via the link below is (still) not the PAR that
was approved by the WG - it has been altered, per a motion by Mr. Greenspan.
2) With respect to 1), I believe that Mr. Greenspan (with all due respect)
did not as an appointee, per our P&P, become a voting member of the EC until
the end of our closing EC meeting. Therefore, Mr. Greenspan's motion to
ammend the PAR during the closing EC meeting should have been ruled out of
order by the Chair. (someone else could have made such a motion, but didn't
happen and is therefore water under the bridge)
3)also, while the document linked to below seems to contain at least most of
the essential elements of the approved PAR form, it does not appear to be
"on the approved PAR form" (Mr. Grow made this distinction with respect to
the 802.22.2 PAR and, as a result, I resubmitted that PAR to the EC as a
complete and accurate facimile (a .pdf capture from the IEEE-SA website) of
the approved, current PAR form more than 30 days before its approval and my
WG reaffirmed its approval of the PAR as represented to the EC on the
approved, current PAR form at our WG opening plenary at the beginning of the
802 plenary session during which the EC approved the PAR)
4) Finally, (again) it's unclear to me why (and disturbing to me that) this
discussion - including an attempt at an EC motion - is taking place on a
private distribution list rather than in an open and transparent manner on
the EC reflector (???)
So, why am I making such a fuss? Because I object to the way in which the
EC, or at least some portion of it, seems inclined to selectively apply our
rules in the most restrictive possible manner in the name of "the integrity
of the process" in some instances, but NOT to apply the rules equally in
other instances (the particulars seem to me, from my observation, to depend
upon which interests are involved), and I think that that has to stop.
Regards,
Carl
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Paul Nikolich [mailto:paul.nikolich@att.net]
> Sent: Wednesday, November 22, 2006 7:30 AM
> To: Roger B. Marks; Tony Jeffree
> Cc: Paul Nikolich; Vivek Gupta; Stuart J. Kerry; Steve
> Shellhammer; Michael Lynch; Sherman Matthew; John Hawkins;
> Geoff Thompson; Everett O Rigsbee; Carl Stevenson;
> bob.grow@ieee.org; Bob O'Hara; Bob Heile; Pat Thaler; Mike
> Takefman (tak); a.greenspan@ieee.org
> Subject: forwarding the amended 802.16m PAR to NesCom
>
> Roger,
>
> I am in the process of reviewing the proper procedural way
> forward and will make a ruling by the close of business today.
>
> Regards,
>
> --Paul
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Tony Jeffree" <tony@jeffree.co.uk>
> To: "Roger B. Marks" <r.b.marks@ieee.org>
> Cc: "Paul Nikolich" <p.nikolich@ieee.org>; "Vivek Gupta"
> <vivek.g.gupta@intel.com>; "Stuart J. Kerry"
> <stuart@ok-brit.com>; "Steve Shellhammer"
> <sshellha@QUALCOMM.COM>; "Michael Lynch"
> <mjlynch@nortel.com>; "Sherman Matthew"
> <matthew.sherman@baesystems.com>; "John Hawkins"
> <jhawkins@nortel.com>; "Geoff Thompson"
> <gthompso@nortel.com>; "Everett O Rigsbee"
> <everett.o.rigsbee@boeing.com>; "Carl Stevenson"
> <carl.stevenson@ieee.org>; <bob.grow@ieee.org>; "Bob O'Hara"
> <bob.ohara@ieee.org>; "Bob Heile" <bheile@ieee.org>; "Pat Thaler"
> <pthaler@BROADCOM.COM>; "Mike Takefman (tak)"
> <tak@cisco.com>; <a.greenspan@ieee.org>
> Sent: Wednesday, November 22, 2006 5:17 AM
> Subject: Re: close of the closing EC meeting
>
>
> > Roger -
> >
> > Would be happy to second the motion, but do you really mean
> 5 October?
> > If so, it can wait till March surely... ;-)
> >
> > Regards,
> > Tony
> >
> > At 07:30 22/11/2006, Roger B. Marks wrote:
> >>Paul,
> >>
> >>I have heard nothing further from you on this issue. Further delay
> >>exacerbates the problem.
> >>
> >>I therefore request the following EC Electronic Ballot, to
> open on 22
> >>November and close on 29 November:
> >>
> >>"To forward the P802.16m PAR (IEEE 802.16-06/054r4), as
> supported by
> >>the the Five Criteria (IEEE 802.16-06/055r3), to NesCom, for
> >>consideration at its meeting of 5 October if at all possible."
> >>
> >>The document IEEE 802.16-06/054r4:
> >> http://ieee802.org/16/docs/06/80216-06_054r4.pdf
> >>
> >>represents the PAR as amended by the motion of Mr. Greenspan that
> >>carried 14/1/1. The Five Criteria statement IEEE 802.16-06/055r3:
> >> http://ieee802.org/16/docs/06/80216-06_055r3.pdf
> >>
> >>is the same document considered in the motions of 17 November.
> >>
> >>Roger
> >>>
----------
This email is sent from the 802 Executive Committee email reflector. This list is maintained by Listserv.