Re: [802SEC] Arnie's concern regarding submittals to ITU WP8F
Bob,
The IEEE has a Sector Membership in ITU-T and Bilel N Jamoussi Ph.D. of
Nortel (also a member of the BoG) was appointed by the BoG as the official
Liaison to ITU-T ... I believe that 802 (and other sponsor) WGs with desire
to submit contributions/liaise with ITU-T should have sponsor (EC) approval
and then go through the official liaison (Bilel) rather than "doing their
own thing". Again, in addition to the fact that our individual WGs don't
have status in the ITU (only IEEE as a Sector Member does), I think this is
important to IEEE for a number of reasons (level playing field, maintaining
IEEE's image and status, etc. as mentioned before.)
Regards,
Carl
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Grow, Bob [mailto:bob.grow@intel.com]
> Sent: Monday, November 05, 2007 9:30 PM
> To: wk3c@WK3C.COM; STDS-802-SEC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
> Subject: RE: [802SEC] Arnie's concern regarding submittals to ITU WP8F
>
> Colleagues:
>
> I am not attempting to stop a discussion of this issue at the EC to
> things clarified, but think is important to point out some things to
> think about.
>
> What constitutes an intergovernmental body? Does 14.1 ever apply to
> standards development groups with national body voting?
>
> I believe liaison communications from WGs to multiple groups with
> national body voting have long been conducted under 14.1 requirements,
> not under 14.2 requirements. While ITU-R may be the focus
> for more LMSC
> WGs than ITU-T, there are still a couple groups that have ITU-T issues
> to liaise.
>
> --Bob Grow
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: ***** IEEE 802 Executive Committee List *****
> [mailto:STDS-802-SEC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG] On Behalf Of Carl R. Stevenson
> Sent: Monday, November 05, 2007 6:01 PM
> To: STDS-802-SEC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
> Subject: Re: [802SEC] Arnie's concern regarding submittals to ITU WP8F
>
> Dear EC members,
>
> I support Arnie's request that this be the subject of an EC discussion
> (during one of the EC meetings, NOT during the week when WG
> Chairs have
> WG
> meetings to run). I think that this is important enough that it
> deserves to
> be allocated more than a cursory 5-10 minutes of discussion time, too.
>
> I believe that submissions to ITU need to be reviewed by .18, be
> approved
> (or reviewed under the 5 day rule) by the EC, and be submitted by Mike
> Lynch
> (the designated liaison to ITU-R for the IEEE's sector
> membership) for a
> review by Terry deCourcelle at SA HQ before being submitted
> to ITU-R as
> an
> IEEE contribution.
>
> The IEEE is the Sector Member ... neither .16 nor any other WG has, or
> should have, any standing to submit contributions to ITU-R ... that
> right
> is, as it should be, reserved for Sector Members and Member States per
> ITU
> rules (if this rule has been ignored or skirted in the past
> that should
> not
> constitute an excuse to continue the practice).
>
> IEEE needs to maintain control over the use of its sector
> membership in
> ITU-R, not only to maintain a level playing field amongst potentially
> competing internal interest groups, but also in order to maintain its
> image
> and the privilege of sector membership.
>
> Regards,
> Carl
>
> > -------------- Forwarded Message: --------------
> > From: "IEEE LISTSERV Server (15.0)" <LISTSERV@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG>
> > To: greenspana@BELLSOUTH.NET
> > Subject: Rejected posting to STDS-802-SEC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
> > Date: Fri, 2 Nov 2007 20:51:43 +0000
> > All:
> >
> > Paul has requested that I bring a concern that I have to
> the attention
> > of the EC and that this subject be added as an agenda item for
> > discussion by the EC in Atlanta. This message is in the way
> of a heads
> > up to the members of the EC so that we can exchange views on the Ec
> > reflector.
> >
> > Briefly;
> > My concern is that the chair of 802.16 has announced his
> intention of
> > making a separate submittal to WP8F other than the joint submittal
> > administered by 802.18 at the direction of the EC. I think that a
> > separate submittal by 802.16 is inappropriate and contrary to the
> > express direction of the EC. I request that the EC clarify their
> > direction so that all working groups will be playing on a
> > level playing field.
> > Arnie Greenspan
> >
> > ----------
> > 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.