Re: [802SEC] EC Motion - RE: [802SEC] Update to EC on IMT-Advanced
Carl,
I don't understand the nature of your proposal. Are you proposing an
Electronic Ballot, under 7.1.3.4? If so, then you should address the
terms specified in 7.1.3.4: "At times, it may become necessary for
the EC to render a decision that cannot be made prior to the close of
one plenary but must be made prior to the opening of the following
plenary. Such decisions may be made using electronic balloting."
Considering that the next ITU-R meeting on this topic is scheduled
for January 2008, what is it about this issue that the EC needs to
decide before the November plenary?
I'm also confused by the content of your suggestion. That's because
the existing P&P includes a subclause (14.2) with a detailed
procedure to cover the issue. We've used that procedure many times.
Are you saying it is inadequate in this case? Is there an aspect of
the existing procedure that raises your concern about "individual
WGs... presenting individual, potentially differing, inputs to ITU-R"?
And are you suggesting that your motion would override the existing
procedure in 14.2?
Regards,
Roger
On Jul 23, 2007, at 04:32 PM, greenspana@BELLSOUTH.NET wrote:
> I'd be happy to second Carls' motion if no one has beaten me to it.
>
> Arnie
>>
>> From: "Carl R. Stevenson" <wk3c@wk3c.com>
>> Date: 2007/07/22 Sun PM 06:58:21 EDT
>> To: "'Michael Lynch'" <mjlynch@NORTEL.COM>, <STDS-802-
>> SEC@listserv.ieee.org>
>> Subject: [802SEC] EC Motion - RE: [802SEC] Update to EC on IMT-
>> Advanced
>>
>> Dear Mike and other fellow EC members,
>>
>> I believe that there is no appropriate course other than to
>> develop a joint
>> IEEE 802 input on IMT-Advanced requirements.
>>
>> To allow individual WGs to deliver individual inputs to this work
>> would
>> present differing, and likely conflicting, views. To do so would
>> only cause
>> confusion and give the impression that IEEE 802 "doesn't have its act
>> together." This would be "a bad thing" because it would diminish our
>> credibility and influence in these important matters.
>>
>> Thus, I make the following EC motion:
>>
>> Moved: That IEEE 802 and its interested WGs continue to work under
>> the
>> auspices of the IEEE 802.18 RR-TAG to develop a single joint input
>> to the
>> work of ITU-R on IMT-Advanced, and that individual WGs be
>> prohibited by the
>> EC from presenting individual, potentially differing, inputs to
>> ITU-R on
>> this topic.
>>
>> Is there a second?
>>
>> Regards,
>> Carl
>>
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: owner-stds-802-sec@ieee.org [mailto:owner-stds-802-
>> sec@ieee.org] On
>> Behalf Of Michael Lynch
>> Sent: Thursday, July 19, 2007 2:42 PM
>> To: STDS-802-SEC@listserv.ieee.org
>> Subject: [802SEC] Update to EC on IMT-Advanced
>>
>> Dear EC,
>>
>> Attached is a report from 802.18 to update the status of the work on
>> IMT-Advanced.
>>
>> Please note that the work on developing a further joint IEEE 802
>> input on
>> IMT-Advanced requirements will continue beginning in September.
>>
>> Also note that no decision was taken on developing a joint IEEE
>> 802 input on
>> IMT-Advanced technology. While it was discussed at the Tuesday
>> evening
>> meeting it was not possible to take a decision at that time.
>> Hopefully that can be addressed at the November plenary.
>>
>> Regards,
>>
>> Mike
>>
>> +1.972.814.4901 Mobile
>>
>> <<18-07-0065-00-0000_EC_IMT_Advanced_Update.ppt>>
>>
>> ----------
>> 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.