Thread Links Date Links
Thread Prev Thread Next Thread Index Date Prev Date Next Date Index

Re: [802SEC] a sensible way forward? nNA venues for 2011 and 2012



Phil,

I think that that would be wonderful! (if it's not too late, but it may be,
since Buzz may have already signed a contract with they hotels in Vancouver)

Regards and Happy Holidays,
Carl


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Phillip Barber [mailto:pbarber@huawei.com] 
> Sent: Wednesday, December 19, 2007 2:32 PM
> To: wk3c@wk3c.com
> Cc: Roger B. Marks
> Subject: RE: [802SEC] a sensible way forward? nNA venues for 
> 2011 and 2012
> 
> It is possible that Huawei could host the Macao Plenary in 
> 2009 (as we are
> doing for the 802.16 Interim in March 2008 at that venue), 
> but Huawei needs
> that Host Package so that we can have a clear understanding 
> of what 802's
> requirements are and can properly negotiate with the venue 
> and formulate the
> most accurate and informed bid to the 802 EC.
> 
> Thanks,
> Phillip Barber
> Chief Scientist
> Wireless Advanced Research and Standards
> Huawei Technologies Co., LTD.
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-stds-802-sec@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
> [mailto:owner-stds-802-sec@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG] On Behalf Of 
> Carl R. Stevenson
> Sent: Wednesday, December 19, 2007 8:30 AM
> To: 'Roger B. Marks'; 'Geoff Thompson'
> Cc: STDS-802-SEC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
> Subject: Re: [802SEC] a sensible way forward? nNA venues for 
> 2011 and 2012
> 
> Any chance we could get either of these venues sooner than 2011???
> 
> Carl
>  
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: owner-stds-802-sec@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG 
> > [mailto:owner-stds-802-sec@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG] On Behalf Of 
> > Roger B. Marks
> > Sent: Tuesday, December 18, 2007 10:36 PM
> > To: Geoff Thompson
> > Cc: STDS-802-SEC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
> > Subject: Re: [802SEC] a sensible way forward? nNA venues for 
> > 2011 and 2012
> > 
> > Geoff,
> > 
> > Right. On the other hand, it's possible to take a ferry 
> > directly from  
> > the Hong Kong Intl Airport to Macao, bypassing Hong Kong 
> immigration  
> > and customs. This can save some time and hassle. It also 
> eliminates  
> > the need for a Hong Kong visa (though nationals of most countries  
> > don't need one for Hong Kong anyway).
> > 
> > As I mentioned to the EC last July, 802.16 will be meeting at the  
> > Venetian Macao in May.
> > 
> > Roger
> > 
> > 
> > On Dec 18, 2007, at 05:02 PM, Geoff Thompson wrote:
> > 
> > > Buzz-
> > >
> > > That "the Venetian Macao in the Hong Kong province of PRC" is an  
> > > incorrect statement.
> > >
> > > Hong Kong is not a "province" but rather a "Special 
> Administrative  
> > > Region" (S.A.R.). Macau is not within the Hong Kong 
> S.A.R. but is  
> > > within a separate and distinct S.A.R. of its own. Hong 
> Kong was a  
> > > British Territory, Macau belonged to Portugal. Chinese and  
> > > Portuguese are the two official languages
> > >
> > > Geoff
> > >
> > >
> > > At 03:26 PM 12/18/2007 , Rigsbee, Everett O wrote:
> > >> Hi Pat,
> > >>
> > >> Not sure the motion is necessary.  We were in agreement 
> with the  
> > >> proposal from the start, and based on the fact that 
> there were no  
> > >> objections to the proposal, we have adopted and are already  
> > >> following the proposal and timeline to get us to 
> confirmed sites  
> > >> by July 2008.
> > >>
> > >> The really good news is that by readjusting our sites for March  
> > >> 2011 and beyond there are now some really awesome venue choices  
> > >> available for us that could solve our nNA venue problems for us  
> > >> permanently.
> > >>
> > >> We already have 2 candidate venues with hosts lined up: one for  
> > >> the 2500 room Marina Bay Sands Hotel in downtown Singapore that  
> > >> has over 1,000,000 sq.ft. of function space, 10 
> > restaurants, a spa  
> > >> and fitness center, and a science & art museum; the 
> other for the  
> > >> Venetian Macao in the Hong Kong province of PRC, which has 3000  
> > >> all-suites rooms and over 1,000,000 sq.ft. of meeting 
> space. Both  
> > >> of these could easily do a IEEE-802 plenary and at much more  
> > >> affordable prices than what we were seeing for Rome.  We will  
> > >> still follow the Roger process to ensure we find the best deals  
> > >> available but it is very nice to start off with 
> something greater  
> > >> than the empty set to consider in our deliberations.  So 
> I think  
> > >> this time we are going to get some great choices.
> > >>
> > >> See the links below for more info:
> > >>
> > >> Marina Bay Sands:  http://www.marinabaysands.com/index.html
> > >>
> > >> Venetian Macau:  http://www.venetianmacao.com/en/home.aspx
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> Thanx,  Buzz
> > >> Dr. Everett O. (Buzz) Rigsbee
> > >> Boeing IT
> > >> PO Box 3707, M/S: 7M-FM
> > >> Seattle, WA  98124-2207
> > >> Ph: (425) 373-8960    Fx: (425) 865-7960
> > >> Cell: (425) 417-1022
> > >> everett.o.rigsbee@boeing.com
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> -----Original Message-----
> > >> From: Pat Thaler [mailto:pthaler@BROADCOM.COM]
> > >> Sent: Tuesday, December 18, 2007 2:28 PM
> > >> To: STDS-802-SEC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
> > >> Subject: Re: [802SEC] a sensible way forward? nNA venues 
> > for 2011 and
> > >> 2012
> > >>
> > >> Paul,
> > >>
> > >> Can we run this motion? I am concerned that if we don't 
> start it  
> > >> soon we
> > >> will lose the ability to start the non-NA proposal process with
> > >> tentative proposals due for our March meeting and firm 
> proposals in
> > >> July. If it pushes out further, it may make March 2011 very  
> > >> difficult.
> > >>
> > >> In my last email I pointed out that it is more efficient 
> > for us to  
> > >> work
> > >> on planning for these three meetings in the same 
> proposal cycle.  
> > >> Running
> > >> a concurrent process for the three plenaries may also make it  
> > >> easier for
> > >> potential hosts. When they contact possible venues, they 
> can ask  
> > >> about
> > >> availabilty for any of the three dates.
> > >>
> > >> On Dec 3, 2007, at 07:37 PM, Pat Thaler wrote:
> > >>
> > >> > Based on Buzz's input regarding university venues, I am 
> > removing  
> > >> July
> > >> > 2012 and adding in July 2013.
> > >> >
> > >> > I suggest a motion as follows:
> > >> >
> > >> > To adopt the following process for finding and 
> choosing non-North
> > >> > American plenary venues for March 2011 and March 2012, 
> July 2013
> > >> >
> > >> > (1) by 15 January: IEEE 802 Executive Secretary issues 
> a draft  
> > >> set of
> > >> > facility requirements and issues a Request for Interest (RfI)  
> > >> seeking
> > >> > a letter of intent from any prospective hosts.
> > >> > (2) 7 March: Deadline for letter of intent that would name
> > >> > prospective host and venue but without a firm 
> commitment to host.
> > >> > (3) 21 March: 802 EC approves a request for proposals (RfP),
> > >> > including facility requirements and hosting 
> > specifications, with a
> > >> > specific submittal template to allow ready 
> > intercomparison. 802 EC
> > >> > also authorizes travel expenses for site visits to 
> prospective  
> > >> hosts
> > >> > identified by letter of intent.
> > >> > (4) 20 June: Deadline for host proposals issued in 
> > response to the
> > >> > RfP.
> > >> > (5) 1 July: Executive Secretary submits report summarizing  
> > >> proposals
> > >> > and results of site visits.
> > >> > (6) 14 July: During a tutorial slot, host candidates 
> > overview their
> > >> > proposals.
> > >> > (7) 18 July: 802 EC votes to accept proposals.
> > >> >
> > >> > Regards,
> > >> > Pat
> > >> >
> > >> >
> > >> >
> > >> > -----Original Message-----
> > >> > From: ***** IEEE 802 Executive Committee List *****
> > >> > [mailto:STDS-802-SEC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG] On Behalf Of 
> > Paul Nikolich
> > >> > Sent: Monday, December 03, 2007 7:42 AM
> > >> > To: STDS-802-SEC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
> > >> > Subject: [802SEC] a sensible way forward? nNA venues for 2011  
> > >> and 2012
> > >> >
> > >> > All,
> > >> >
> > >> > Tony's suggestion: "... I would prefer to see us pass a motion
> > >> > accepting
> > >> >
> > >> > Roger's proposed process (or some near variant thereof) for  
> > >> choosing
> > >> > potential nNA venues in the future, and that we follow up by  
> > >> actually
> > >> > getting our hands dirty with finding some candidates to choose
> > >> > between."
> > >> >
> > >> > makes sense to me.
> > >> >
> > >> > FYI the SASB meetings are being held this week and I 
> > need to pay  
> > >> close
> > >> > attention to what is happening down there in FL, so I'd 
> > like to put
> > >> > taking
> > >> > any action on the nNA issue on hold for a week--but let 
> > the debate
> > >> > continue,
> > >> > perhaps by next Monday we'll have a sensible motion 
> crafted that
> > >> > will be
> > >> >
> > >> > ready for email ballot to close before the end of the year  
> > >> holidays?
> > >> >
> > >> > Regards,
> > >> >
> > >> > --Paul
> > >> >
> > >> >
> > >> > ----- Original Message -----
> > >> > From: "Tony Jeffree" <tony@JEFFREE.CO.UK>
> > >> > To: <STDS-802-SEC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG>
> > >> > Sent: Monday, December 03, 2007 9:04 AM
> > >> > Subject: Re: [802SEC] Motion re: nNA venues for 2011 and 2012
> > >> >
> > >> >
> > >> >> At 01:26 03/12/2007, Sherman, Matthew J. \(US SSA\) wrote:
> > >> >>
> > >> >>> Tony,
> > >> >>>
> > >> >>> First I am fully supportive of Roger's plan and think we  
> > >> should go
> > >> >>> forward.
> > >> >>
> > >> >> In which case I am sure you would have no problem 
> supporting a  
> > >> motion
> > >> > that
> > >> >> approves that as a plan going forward.
> > >> >>
> > >> >>> I recognize that many of us are now getting involved and
> > >> >>> trying to assist Buzz.
> > >> >>
> > >> >> The point I was trying to make is that until we are 
> *all* (and  
> > >> I mean
> > >> > all,
> > >> >> not just a few or even the majority) actively involved in  
> > >> fixing this
> > >> >> problem, then
> > >> >>
> > >> >> (a) the likelihood of it getting fixed is small,
> > >> >>
> > >> >> and
> > >> >>
> > >> >> (b) we have no business passing motions of the form 
> > "Until they  
> > >> fix
> > >> > the
> > >> >> problem then they can't do X".
> > >> >>
> > >> >>> But it bothers me that we have worked on this
> > >> >>> for 3 years (if I've understood correctly) without finding a
> > >> >>> solution,
> > >> >>> and that we now have at least 4 more years (5 since we 
> > just gave
> > >> >>> away
> > >> >>> 2011 as well as 2009 as being potentially to 'too 
> hard' to take
> > >> > non-NA).
> > >> >>> Where does it end?
> > >> >>
> > >> >> ...but that is precisely my point. "We", for the most part,  
> > >> haven't
> > >> > been
> > >> >> working on it *at all* other than offering occasional
> > >> >> encouragement to
> > >> >
> > >> >> others and passing the odd motion. Big deal. Its time 
> we stopped
> > >> > passing
> > >> >> vacuous motions and got with the program.
> > >> >>
> > >> >>
> > >> >>> I think we need to place a strong focus on solving the  
> > >> problem.  The
> > >> >>> fact that there is a 'safe solution' I believe is 
> preventing  
> > >> us from
> > >> >>> focusing on solving the problem.  It's time to fly 
> > without a net.
> > >> >>
> > >> >> I'm sorry...that doesn't make much more sense to me than your
> > >> > "learning
> > >> >> from experience" comment earlier in the discussion.
> > >> >>
> > >> >>
> > >> >>> By the way, we already ripped up one decision we made 
> > that would
> > >> >>> have
> > >> >>> forced us to go to Rome (non-NA).  We can always rip 
> up this  
> > >> motion
> > >> > too
> > >> >>> if it becomes apparent we can't find a venue.
> > >> >>
> > >> >> In which case, why bother to make the motion in the 
> first place?
> > >> >>
> > >> >>> But I would like that for
> > >> >>> at least one year Buzz truly focuses on finding a 
> > non-NA venue  
> > >> with
> > >> > out
> > >> >>> the distraction of NA venues to consider.
> > >> >>
> > >> >> I repeat, I would like for *us all* to truly focus on 
> > the problem.
> > >> > Buzz is
> > >> >> a volunteer, just like the rest of us; this isn't his 
> > only job.  
> > >> And
> > >> > there
> > >> >> is a limit to what one person can do in a situation 
> where we are
> > >> >> attempting to do something that is new for the 
> > organisation and  
> > >> may
> > >> > not
> > >> >> necessarily conform to the way business is routinely done in  
> > >> NA. He
> > >> >> doesn't need us making more rods for his back; what 
> he needs is
> > >> > practical
> > >> >> help and support. Lets start doing that.
> > >> >>
> > >> >> Regards,
> > >> >> Tony
> > >> >>
> > >> >>
> > >> >>> Mat
> > >> >>>
> > >> >>>
> > >> >>>
> > >> >>>
> > >> >>> Matthew Sherman, Ph.D.
> > >> >>> Engineering Fellow
> > >> >>> BAE Systems -  Network Systems (NS)
> > >> >>> Office: +1 973.633.6344
> > >> >>> Cell: +1 973.229.9520
> > >> >>> email: matthew.sherman@baesystems.com
> > >> >>>
> > >> >>>
> > >> >>>
> > >> >>>
> > >> >>>
> > >> >>> -----Original Message-----
> > >> >>> From: ***** IEEE 802 Executive Committee List *****
> > >> >>> [mailto:STDS-802-SEC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG] On Behalf Of 
> > Tony Jeffree
> > >> >>> Sent: Sunday, December 02, 2007 2:05 PM
> > >> >>> To: STDS-802-SEC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
> > >> >>> Subject: Re: [802SEC] Motion re: nNA venues for 2011 and 2012
> > >> >>>
> > >> >>> Carl -
> > >> >>>
> > >> >>> While I support the desired end result of this motion 
> > (that we  
> > >> get
> > >> >>> nNA meetings ASAP), I feel that it is ill-advised.
> > >> >>>
> > >> >>> Firstly, making motions isn't going to make nNA meetings  
> > >> happen. The
> > >> >>> only thing that will ensure that it will happen is all 
> > of us (not
> > >> >>> just Buzz, Bob H or Face-To-Face) doing what is in 
> our power to
> > >> >>> actively pursue possible venues. Right now, I am 
> > already doing  
> > >> just
> > >> >>> that with my old University (which will of course only be a  
> > >> viable
> > >> >>> choice as a July meeting, so preesumably wouldn't meet the
> > >> >>> requirements of your motion anyway); I don't know yet 
> > whether it
> > >> >>> is a
> > >> >>> viable venue, but there's only one way to find out. 
> If that one
> > >> >>> fails, then I will look elsewhere for a campus venue in the  
> > >> UK. We
> > >> >>> all have contacts of one form or another (via clients,  
> > >> employers, WG
> > >> >>> members... whatever) that we could potentially tap 
> into. For my
> > >> >>> money, that is a more fruitful approach.
> > >> >>>
> > >> >>> Secondly, Putting this kind of straight-jacket on what 
> > we can and
> > >> >>> cannot book has the potential fallout (as Buzz has already  
> > >> pointed
> > >> >>> out) that we end up with no palatable venues at all 
> > for the empty
> > >> >>> slots 2011 on. I don't think that is what we want to happen.
> > >> >>>
> > >> >>> So rather than making what seems to me to be a rather empty  
> > >> gesture
> > >> >>> by passing a "Make it so" motion, I would prefer to 
> > see us pass a
> > >> >>> motion accepting Roger's proposed process (or some 
> near variant
> > >> >>> thereof) for choosing potential nNA venues in the future, and
> > >> >>> that we
> > >> >>> follow up by actually getting our hands dirty with 
> finding some
> > >> >>> candidates to choose between.
> > >> >>>
> > >> >>> Regards,
> > >> >>> Tony
> > >> >>>
> > >> >>> At 13:30 02/12/2007, Carl R. Stevenson wrote:
> > >> >>>> I would accept the following change to my original motion:
> > >> >>>>
> > >> >>>> Moved: That 802 sign no contracts for NA plenary venues  
> > >> beyond 2011
> > >> >>> until we
> > >> >>>> have viable, affordable nNA venues in place for 
> March 2011 and
> > >> >>>> 2012.
> > >> >>>>
> > >> >>>> That will give Buzz the flexibility to book July and 
> > Nov 2011  
> > >> (for
> > >> >>> which he
> > >> >>>> apparently has deals in the works, if I understand 
> > Mat's comment
> > >> >>> correctly),
> > >> >>>> but require us to focus remaining energy in the near term to
> > >> >>>> finding
> > >> >>> nNA
> > >> >>>> venues for March 2011 and a 2012 plenary, which 
> could be any  
> > >> of the
> > >> >>> three.
> > >> >>>>
> > >> >>>> Mat, do I have it right and do you second the 
> ammended motion
> > >> >>>> above?
> > >> >>>>
> > >> >>>> Regards,
> > >> >>>> Carl
> > >> >>>>
> > >> >>>>
> > >> >>>>
> > >> >>>>> -----Original Message-----
> > >> >>>>> From: owner-stds-802-sec@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
> > >> >>>>> [mailto:owner-stds-802-sec@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG] On Behalf Of
> > >> >>>>> Sherman, Matthew J. (US SSA)
> > >> >>>>> Sent: Sunday, December 02, 2007 1:07 AM
> > >> >>>>> To: Rigsbee, Everett O; STDS-802-SEC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
> > >> >>>>> Subject: Re: [802SEC] Motion re: nNA venues for 
> 2011 and 2012
> > >> >>>>>
> > >> >>>>> First,
> > >> >>>>>
> > >> >>>>> I am willing to second Carl's motion (but with a friendly
> > >> >>> amendment).
> > >> >>>>>
> > >> >>>>> I can accept booking 2011 as a North American venue.  There
> > >> >>>>> is only the March meeting left and I think Buzz has already
> > >> >>>>> worked the deals.
> > >> >>>>> However I believe we should be focusing all our energy on
> > >> >>>>> Non-NA venues after that.
> > >> >>>>>
> > >> >>>>> So my recommended motion if Carl will accept it is:
> > >> >>>>>
> > >> >>>>> Moved:  That 802 sign no further contracts for NA plenary
> > >> >>>>> venues beyond
> > >> >>>>> 2011 until we have *viable, affordable* nNA venues 
> > in place for
> > >> >>> 2012.
> > >> >>>>>
> > >> >>>>> Until we start getting working non-NA venues, I 
> think we all
> > >> >>>>> need to chip in and assist Buzz. But we need to 
> light a fire
> > >> >>>>> underneath ourselves.  6 years to figure out how to do this
> > >> >>>>> is simply too long.
> > >> >>>>>
> > >> >>>>> Mat
> > >> >>>>>
> > >> >>>>>
> > >> >>>>>
> > >> >>>>> Matthew Sherman, Ph.D.
> > >> >>>>> Engineering Fellow
> > >> >>>>> BAE Systems -  Network Systems (NS)
> > >> >>>>> Office: +1 973.633.6344
> > >> >>>>> Cell: +1 973.229.9520
> > >> >>>>> email: matthew.sherman@baesystems.com
> > >> >>>>>
> > >> >>>>>
> > >> >>>>>
> > >> >>>>>
> > >> >>>>>
> > >> >>>>> -----Original Message-----
> > >> >>>>> From: ***** IEEE 802 Executive Committee List *****
> > >> >>>>> [mailto:STDS-802-SEC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG] On Behalf 
> Of Rigsbee,
> > >> >>>>> Everett O
> > >> >>>>> Sent: Saturday, December 01, 2007 1:27 PM
> > >> >>>>> To: STDS-802-SEC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
> > >> >>>>> Subject: Re: [802SEC] Motion re: nNA venues for 
> 2011 and 2012
> > >> >>>>>
> > >> >>>>> Colleagues,    This motion is a really "BAD" idea 
> for several
> > >> >>> reasons
> > >> >>>>> but I will explain a couple of them in some detail:
> > >> >>>>>
> > >> >>>>> 1.  We have NO definitions for what is "viable" and what is
> > >> >>>>> "affordable"
> > >> >>>>> beyond what we got in our last survey, which several people
> > >> >>>>> seem to think was flawed in one or more ways.  So I would
> > >> >>>>> suggest that if we want to put any qualifiers on nNA venue
> > >> >>>>> selections we need to do some homework to decide 
> what are the
> > >> >>>>> appropriate qualifiers to ensure that they produce the best
> > >> >>>>> Good for all of IEEE-802.  I tend to agree with Roger Marks
> > >> >>>>> that the best nNA venues will be those that have 
> good support
> > >> >>>>> from local hosts but finding appropriate hosts for 
> nNA venues
> > >> >>>>> will take some time as we have seen from Roger's schedule.
> > >> >>>>> And when have we reached our goal ???  When we 
> have selected
> > >> >>>>> a site for 2011, or when we actually have all contracts in
> > >> >>>>> place, which might take up to a year after 
> selection?  Do we
> > >> >>>>> also have to have a completed deal for March 2012 
> as well ???
> > >> >>>>>  That might take another year to complete.  How do we know,
> > >> >>>>> "Are we done yet ???"
> > >> >>>>>
> > >> >>>>> 2.  Meanwhile we have open slots in our schedule 
> that we need
> > >> >>>>> to book 3 to 4 years out to get access to any of the venues
> > >> >>>>> we actually like, such as San Francisco, Maui, New Orleans,
> > >> >>>>> and San Antonio.  If we are not actively booking 
> those slots
> > >> >>>>> while we have good choices available, I can absolutely
> > >> >>>>> guarantee that you will NOT like the choices we 
> have at only
> > >> >>>>> 2 years out (are we ready for HR-DFW or Hilton WDW again
> > >> >>>>> ???).  Right now we do have some good choices that we have
> > >> >>>>> spent many hours working to bring you, but if we pass on
> > >> >>>>> those for an indefinite period, you will not get 
> another shot
> > >> >>>>> at them.  If we want to consider some constraints on future
> > >> >>>>> venues let's focus on those that are in 2013 and 
> beyond but I
> > >> >>>>> would suggest that we do that by just not supporting venues
> > >> >>>>> further out until we have some nNA venues on the schedule.
> > >> >>>>> But I sincerely believe each venue needs to be 
> judged on its
> > >> >>>>> own merits and that we need to continuously seek guidance
> > >> >>>>> from our membership as to what is really most important to
> > >> >>>>> the success of the organization as a whole.
> > >> >>>>>
> > >> >>>>>
> > >> >>>>> Thanx,  Buzz
> > >> >>>>> Dr. Everett O. (Buzz) Rigsbee
> > >> >>>>> Boeing IT
> > >> >>>>> PO Box 3707, M/S: 7M-FM
> > >> >>>>> Seattle, WA  98124-2207
> > >> >>>>> Ph: (425) 373-8960    Fx: (425) 865-7960
> > >> >>>>> Cell: (425) 417-1022
> > >> >>>>> everett.o.rigsbee@boeing.com
> > >> >>>>>
> > >> >>>>> -----Original Message-----
> > >> >>>>> From: Carl R. Stevenson [mailto:wk3c@wk3c.com]
> > >> >>>>> Sent: Saturday, December 01, 2007 8:17 AM
> > >> >>>>> To: STDS-802-SEC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
> > >> >>>>> Subject: [802SEC] Motion re: nNA venues for 2011 and 2012
> > >> >>>>> Importance: High
> > >> >>>>>
> > >> >>>>> Having been asked to wait until the previous ballot closed,
> > >> >>>>> the following would now appear to be timely.
> > >> >>>>>
> > >> >>>>> Moved: That 802 sign no further contracts for NA plenary
> > >> >>>>> venues until we have *viable, affordable* nNA 
> venues in place
> > >> >>>>> for 2011 and 2012.
> > >> >>>>>
> > >> >>>>> Background: It appears that we require some "feet to 
> > the fire"
> > >> >>>>> motivation to
> > >> >>>>> find, select, and contract for nNA plenary venues.  This
> > >> >>>>> motion, if approved, would require that we meet our 3 year
> > >> >>>>> old policy objective to hold at least one nNA plenary
> > >> >>>>> annually, starting at the earliest possible time and assure
> > >> >>>>> that ALL possible plenary session dates that are 
> not already
> > >> >>>>> contracted for be considered for nNA until we have 
> contracted
> > >> >>>>> viable, affordable nNA venues for 2011 and 2012.
> > >> >>>>>
> > >> >>>>> Regards from the BoG meeting in Florida,
> > >> >>>>>
> > >> >>>>> Carl
> > >> >>>>>
> > >> >>>>>
> > >> >>>>> ----------
> > >> >>>>> 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.
> > >> >
> > >> > ----------
> > >> > 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.
> > >
> > > ----------
> > > 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.