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

Re: [802SEC] RE: [802SEC] RE: [802SEC] forwarding the amended 802.16m PAR to NesCom



Bob,

To be totally candid and honest, my best recollection is that was a very
*minor* change (a couple of words in the title of the document or something
like that to correct an inadvertent omission or error - with no change in
scope or purpose and no expressed controversy), NOT a totally new PAR with a
significant amount of controversy from several WGs. In other words, more
administrative than substantive to the best of my recollection.

To me there is a BIG difference between non-controversial administrative
"maintenance" perfunctiva on existing PARs (with no change in scope and
purpose) and approving a substantive, controversial new PAR where several
WGs and a number of individual members have unresolved issues.

Regards,
Carl



> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-stds-802-sec@ieee.org 
> [mailto:owner-stds-802-sec@ieee.org] On Behalf Of Bob O'Hara (boohara)
> Sent: Wednesday, November 22, 2006 6:26 PM
> To: STDS-802-SEC@listserv.ieee.org
> Subject: [802SEC] RE: [802SEC] RE: [802SEC] forwarding the 
> amended 802.16m PAR to NesCom
> 
> Carl,
> 
> As Mike Takefman pointed out in an earlier email to the EC 
> reflector, both you and Steve voted in favor to forward an 
> amended PAR (802.17b) for continuous processing (early 
> consideration).  Is it just convenient
> *now* that you object to voting on a PAR on the reflector and 
> not then?
> 
>  -Bob
>  
> -----Original Message-----
> From: ***** IEEE 802 Executive Committee List ***** 
> [mailto:STDS-802-SEC@ieee.org] On Behalf Of Carl R Stevenson
> Sent: Wednesday, November 22, 2006 3:21 PM
> To: STDS-802-SEC@listserv.ieee.org
> Subject: Re: [802SEC] RE: [802SEC] forwarding the amended 
> 802.16m PAR to NesCom
> 
> Bob,
> 
> My point is that PARs and Drafts are specifically mentioned 
> under voting at meetings as having special requirements.
> 
> There are other parts in the P&P that certainly point to the 
> clear intent (and "tradition" for those who invoke *that* 
> when it suits their
> purposes)
> that PARs only be approved at the closing EC meeting.
> 
> Additionally, as I have pointed out in other e-mails, 7.1.3.4 
> "Electronic Balloting" clearly indicates that electronic 
> balloting is reserved for issues that MUST be resolved prior 
> to the opening of the following plenary - and because of the 
> long timelines in ITU-R, the controversy surrounding this 
> PAR, and the other procedural issues I've pointed to, I do 
> NOT believe that the approval of this PAR meets that standard 
> of necessity.
> 
> Regards,
> Carl
>  
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: owner-stds-802-sec@ieee.org
> > [mailto:owner-stds-802-sec@ieee.org] On Behalf Of Bob 
> O'Hara (boohara)
> > Sent: Wednesday, November 22, 2006 5:59 PM
> > To: STDS-802-SEC@listserv.ieee.org
> > Subject: [802SEC] RE: [802SEC] forwarding the amended 
> 802.16m PAR to 
> > NesCom
> > 
> > Carl,
> > 
> > 7.1.3.3 deals with how voting at meetings is conducted.  It 
> does not 
> > encompass WHAT items may be voted on at meetings.
> > If we are to follow your line of reasoning that because 
> voting on PARs 
> > is mentioned as having specific requirements for voting 
> conducted at 
> > meetings, PARs may be voted on ONLY at meetings, we could conclude 
> > that because everything else voted on at meetings is covered by the 
> > general clause in 7.1.3.3, NOTHING can be voted on outside of 
> > meetings.
> > 
> > This is clearly not the case, as the EC votes on items outside of 
> > meetings all the time.  The requirements in
> > 7.1.3.3 are on the voting itself, not the matters on which 
> the vote is 
> > conducted.
> > 
> >  -Bob
> >  
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: ***** IEEE 802 Executive Committee List ***** 
> > [mailto:STDS-802-SEC@ieee.org] On Behalf Of Carl R Stevenson
> > Sent: Wednesday, November 22, 2006 2:04 PM
> > To: STDS-802-SEC@listserv.ieee.org
> > Subject: 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.
> > 
> > ----------
> > 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.
> 

----------
This email is sent from the 802 Executive Committee email reflector.  This list is maintained by Listserv.