Re: [802SEC] Arnie's concern regarding submittals to ITU WP8F response
All:
Let me start to respond by stating that 802.20 was invited and agreed to participate in the development of a single common input from ITU WP8F under the leadership and coordination of Mike Lynch and 802.18. For our first input we had coordination, telecoms, disscussion and ultimately achieved consensus and a common 802 input.
At the Montreal meeting (I believe) Mike lynch hosted an evening meeting discussing the next input to be developed by 802 for submittal to ITU. At that meeting the Vice Chair of 802.16 stood up and said that achieving a common input by working with the other working groups was too hard and that 802.16 would develop their own input. This may or may not be the position of 802.16 but it was said. I remember it distinctly because Steve Shellhammer responded by stating (inellegantly but I think accurately) that if achieving consensus was hard that was just tough because that is what we do in the IEEE and in 802.
Now it appears by the responses received from Bob and Pat that, what I believed was direction from the EC that one input from 802 was to be developed and coordinated through 802.18 was not exactly what was decided by the EC. According to them, there may be an input from 802 via 802.18 but there may be other inputs from individuals or other companys or a variety of entities. This was not at all clear to me nor the basis that we in 802.20 joined in the 802.18 effort.
What I have asked is that the EC clarify their intent. If the EC has asked for an 802.18 input and a variety of other inputs from sundry sources let us make that clear and I am certain that a Whitmans Sampler of inputs will sprout as inputs to ITU WP8F. If the EC beleives that this would cause confusion and reflect badly on the IEEE and 802 then we should say that and enforce a single input. If Roger would like to state that this has all been a terrible missunderstanding on my part and that he or other .16 entities have no interntion, plan or interest in developing a different input, that would be helpfull, even though Pat and Bob seem to believe that as long as we put a different wrapping and name on an input that was developed within 802 that is OK.
Arnie Greenspan
Original message from "Roger B. Marks" <r.b.marks@IEEE.ORG>: --------------
> Arnie,
>
> I'm also confused about what you are saying here, even though I am a
> principal party. Other EC members may really be in the dark.
>
> In particular, you said 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
> it is important to be specific here. Could you tell me, for instance,
> what I announced, and when, and to whom? I can speculate as to your
> meaning (see point (2) below), but it would probably be helpful to
> the EC if they were not forced to speculate.
>
> When you say that "separate submittal by 802.16 is inappropriate and
> contrary to the express direction of the EC," are you referring to
> the P&P (Clause 14.2, as noted by Pat)? If not, when and where else
> does the EC provide an "express direction" regarding submittals to
> ITU-R?
>
> Over the years, the 802.16 WG has initiated many contributions that
> went from IEEE to ITU-R. Some of these went to WP 8F. Of course, 8F
> has been disbanded, but I won't get too hung up on that issue since
> its work will undoubtedly be assigned to another WP. Still, I am not
> sure what topics you are addressing. What is the topic of the "the
> joint submittal administered by 802.18" you mentioned?
>
> Let's consider two particular topics that formerly fell under 8F.
> Both are related to IMT-Advanced:
>
> (1) Contributions of comments regarding the IMT-Advanced technical
> requirements.
> The IEEE 802.16 Working Group has participated actively with the
> 802.18 TAG toward reaching consensus contributions. It did so in
> preparation for the previous regularly-scheduled meeting of WP 8F (in
> May). In July, you volunteered to second a proposal that Mr.
> Stevenson offered as an email motion > msg09626.html> "that individual WGs be prohibited by the EC from
> presenting individual, potentially differing, inputs to ITU-R"
> regarding IMT-Advanced. The EC Chair ruled this motion out of order
> "since it is direct conflict with 802 P&P sections 14.1 and 14.2
> which grant WGs an TAGs the ability to communicate directly with
> standards bodies and government bodies" > msg09570.html>. The Chair also said that "it does seem reasonable for
> the 802 WGs and TAGs to provide an IEEE 802 communication to the ITU-
> R IMT-Advanced activity if possible and I would encourage them to do
> so."
>
> To summarize the followup to that discussion, the 802.16 WG continued
> to follow the EC Chair's encouragement. It has not proposed to
> develop its own standalone input on this topic. In fact, in
> September, it submitted two contributions to the IEEE 802.18 TAG on
> the issue. One proposed that 802.18 develop input to ITU-R on IMT-
> Advanced evaluation criteria as well as IMT-Advanced technical
> requirements, and it proposed specific procedures and schedules to
> encourage efficient development of contributions by the November
> Plenary. The other offered detailed comments. These contributions
> were copied to the EC . To
> my knowledge, 802.18 received no other contributions on the IMT-
> Advanced topic for consideration in its September meeting. 802.18
> decided to continue development before the November Plenary. To my
> understanding, only the 802.16 and 802.11 WGs contributed to that
> effort, which resulted in two drafts that were posted today.
>
> Is this "the joint submittal administered by 802.18" that you
> mentioned? If so, then I don't see any sign of the "intent" you
> believe I announced. On the contrary, I conclude that 802.16 has been
> active in supporting 802.18, on a voluntary basis, in the development
> of submittals intended as IEEE contributions regarding IMT-Advanced
> technical comments and evaluation criteria. So perhaps you were not
> thinking of this topic.
>
> (2) Contributions of technical proposed regarding the content of IMT-
> Advanced recommendations.
> The issue of whether IEEE 802.18 would try, in the future, to
> coordinate a joint contribution of a specific technical standard or
> standards as an element of IMT-Advanced recommendations was discussed
> within 802.18 during the July Plenary. Various views were stated, and
> no decision was reached .
> The 802.16 WG followed up with a contribution (IEEE L802.16-07/061)
> to the 802.18 Radio Regulatory TAG's September session, copying the
> EC . It is possible that
> you were referring to this document when you said that I announced my
> intention. But please note that this contribution was not an
> announcement by the WG Chair; it identified itself as a statement
> "from the 802.16 Working Group." Its purpose was "to share our views
> on the development/coordination of 802 radio interface technology
> submission(s) to ITU-R for IMT-Advanced."
>
> This document IEEE L802.16-07/061 > L80216-07_061.pdf> is a serious analysis of the issue. It raises some
> important procedural and practical concerns. It argues that this
> case, which is a matter of standardization, is quite unlike the case
> of point (1) above. It makes clear that the 802.16 WG does expect to
> develop a proposal toward IMT-Advanced, based on the P802.16m
> Amendment, and it argues that the PAR assigns the responsibility for
> this internationalization to the WG. It suggests that forcing an 802-
> wide collaboration on technology standards for IMT-Advanced would be
> cumbersome, untimely, and ultimately unsuccessful.
>
>
> In conclusion: If the topic is whether WGs should, in the future,
> attempt to coordinate a joint contribution of a specific technical
> standard or standards as an element of IMT-Advanced recommendations,
> then it is clear that the 802.16 WG has taken a position against it
> and provided its reasons. A standalone proposal developed within a WG
> is routine under the procedures and, to my knowledge, is not contrary
> to any "express direction of the EC." I'd be happy to discuss this
> with the EC members.
>
> Roger
>
>
>
> On Nov 5, 2007, at 05:36 PM, Pat Thaler wrote:
>
> > Arnie,
> >
> > I don't understand the meaning of "his intention of making a
> > submittal".
> > Do you mean that he is making a submittal on behalf of his Working
> > Group
> > or do you mean that he is planning a submittal as an individual or
> > from
> > a non-802 entity (e.g. his employer or another body). WP8F in your
> > email
> > means the ITU WP8F I assume. That makes it a communication to an
> > "intergovernmental body" which comes under 14.2 of our rules rather
> > than
> > Coordination with Other Standards Bodies under 14.1, right?
> >
> > If he intends to make a submittal from his Working Group, then it is
> > covered by our rules. Under 14.2.2 Working Group or TAG
> > Communications,
> > the submittal would need 75% approval of the Working Group or TAG and
> > sent to the EC for 5 day review during which a motion could be made to
> > block release of the submittal and submittal would be withheld
> > while we
> > voted on the motion.
> >
> > If he is making the submittal as an individual or due to his role
> > in an
> > non-802 organization, I believe that is allowed. In that case, the
> > submittal should make clear that it is not from the WG or IEEE 802. We
> > didn't give up the ability to participate in other standards when we
> > took our leadership roles in IEEE 802. I participate in and submit
> > input
> > to T11 and at times in IETF without passing those submittals by LMSC.
> >
> > Regards,
> > Pat
> >
> > P.S., in reviewing the rules I noticed that Clause 14 of our P&P
> > references 5.1.4 of the SB OM but 5.1.3 is the correct reference for
> > Statements to external bodies. 5.1.4 is on Standards publicity.
> > When we
> > redo the P&P to split out bylaws, we should correct and probably
> > should
> > put clause title in external references so that the reader has some
> > help
> > if the referenced document changes clause numbers. I also noticed that
> > 5.1.3 of the SB OM says all external statements should include in the
> > opening paragraph or as a footnote to that paragraph:
> >
> > "This document solely represents the views of name of group and
> > does not
> > necessarily represent a position of either the IEEE or the IEEE
> > Standards Association."
> >
> > I don't recall seeing that statement in all our external
> > communications.
> >
> > -------------- Forwarded Message: --------------
> > From: "IEEE LISTSERV Server (15.0)"
> > 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.