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.