Re: [802SEC] RE: [802SEC] EC Motion - RE: [802SEC] Update to EC on IMT-Advanced
Roger's message came in after I finished in the office for the day, but
Steve's explaination is precisely correct.
Providing the direction (and boundaries) to the WGs to work on this work at
this point is necessary to assure that work progresses. Waiting until the
Nov plenary would severely restrict the time available to complete the work
for January.
Carl
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-stds-802-sec@ieee.org [mailto:owner-stds-802-sec@ieee.org] On
Behalf Of Shellhammer, Steve
Sent: Tuesday, July 24, 2007 12:54 PM
To: Roger B. Marks; STDS-802-SEC@listserv.ieee.org
Subject: [802SEC] RE: [802SEC] EC Motion - RE: [802SEC] Update to EC on
IMT-Advanced
Roger,
I believe that Carl wants to ensure that all the working groups work
together with 802.18 to prepare a unified submission from IEEE 802 to the
ITU. I believe that Mike has a goal of finishing this work by the November
Plenary at which point is can be voted on by the EC. So I believe he wants
to resolve this issue well before the next Plenary. So it sees that an
electronic ballot would be required since waiting until November would be
too late. Carl and Mike can elaborate in more detail themselves in case I
did not touch on all the main points.
Regards,
Steve
-----Original Message-----
From: ***** IEEE 802 Executive Committee List *****
[mailto:STDS-802-SEC@ieee.org] On Behalf Of Roger B. Marks
Sent: Monday, July 23, 2007 5:42 PM
To: STDS-802-SEC@listserv.ieee.org
Subject: 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.
----------
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.