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

Re: [802SEC] *++++ EC ballot regarding IEEE 802 Liaison Letter to SC6 on proposed disposition of 8802 Standards ++++*

Pat-
My experience in JTC1 has indicated that when the delegation of other countries are government sponsored, they are NOT arms of that country's equivalent of the U.S. State Department. Rather, that they are funded by or an operation of that county's equivalent of what is The National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) in the U.S.
ISO is (in general) an organization of voluntary standards for goods that may be involved in the international trade of merchant goods. It is not a treaty organization and has, to the best of my knowledge, no roots in that area. Governmental action, unilateral or bilateral in this arena has mostly been about duties and tariffs, not standards.
On the other hand ITU and its CCITT predecessor is a treaty based organization (e.g. ITU employees and delegates get commissary privileges at the UN store and cafeteria across the street in Geneva. I do not believe that ISO/IEC staffers or delegates have the same privileges). ITU/CCITT has always been concerned with communications across borders, both technical standards for that and payment reconciliation. Spectrum allocation is in the same boat. Historically such communication was between government owned (or at least franchised as in the US) telephone and telegraph companies. Thus the nature of its business was between govenments.
The Universal Postal Union (UPU) is a similar treaty agency under the UN (on much the same rationale).
Thus, I do not support your contention that ISO/IEC JTC 1 should fall under the intergovernmental communication rule even though the voting in JTC is by "national body delegation". 

Best regards and Happy New Year to all,

Geoff


On 2912//11 2:31 PM, Pat Thaler wrote:

I don't think that any need to cite a document other than the UK NB document. The context of our liaison statement is clear.

On a more important procedural matter, I think that 9.2.1 rather than 9.1.1 applies to this communication. We have discussed in the past whether ISO/IEC JTC 1 should fall under the intergovernmental communication or the coordination with other standards bodies rules. Though I would personally prefer to treat them under 9.1.1, the consensus in past discussions has been that they are intergovernmental. They have voting by country and the country delegations are often organized under the country's equivalent of the State Department even if the US delegation is. That they are producing voluntary rather than regulatory standards doesn't matter to the distinction as our current rules are written.

Under 9.2.1, the motion requires 2/3 approval of the Sponsor rather than the simple majority required under 9.1.1.

-----Original Message-----
From: ***** IEEE 802 Executive Committee List ***** [mailto:STDS-802-SEC@ieee.org] On Behalf Of Bruce Kraemer
Sent: Friday, December 23, 2011 11:26 AM
To: STDS-802-SEC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [802SEC] *++++ EC ballot regarding IEEE 802 Liaison Letter to SC6 on proposed disposition of 8802 Standards ++++*

Roger,
Thanks for your vote. I'll be more careful to tie my motions to P&P or OM in the future.

Back to item #1,
There was a motion In SC6  associated with the UK NB document  that resulted in 802 being tasked- I just don't know that there is any other document to be referenced. That's what I'll check on.

Bruce.


From: Roger Marks [mailto:r.b.marks@ieee.org]
Sent: Friday, December 23, 2011 2:14 PM
To: Bruce Kraemer
Cc: STDS-802-SEC SEC
Subject: Re: [802SEC] *++++ EC ballot regarding IEEE 802 Liaison Letter to SC6 on proposed disposition of 8802 Standards ++++*

Thanks, Bruce. I vote Approve on the motion. I do think that all motions to approve external documents should be explicit about the decision and followup actions being approved.

Regarding Item #2, I agree that it's best to refer to the experts.

Regarding Item #1, if they didn't take any action to give us an opportunity to comment, I think it's better to not thank them.

Roger



On 2011/12/23, at 11:44 AM, Bruce Kraemer wrote:


Roger,
Let me see if I can address your reluctance to vote...
The report was intended to establish status for 8802 standards and propose a way forward for updating them.
This is a document that represents the collective sentiment of 802 LMSC and the motion was intended to confirm that the contents were ready for presentation to SC6. I see that you don't have any concerns on these topics.

Your proposal is that the motion be tied to a specific OM subclause. (9.1.1). Although I had not expected the motion required recitation of a subclause I believe yours is appropriate as this is a communication from the LMSC to a standards body.

So, I agree with your procedural clarification and also note that Paul must be the issuer of the letter which will be clarified when it is finally formatted posted to the SEC mentor site..

In regard to the two editorials:
Item #2 seems reasonable but the original language was very carefully crafted so before making a change I will consult with Geoff, Tony and Glen.
Item #1 is trickier in that in the letter we do recite the document that resulted in the assignment to 802. It don't believe the San Diego meeting minutes contain any additional "strength" - but I'll double check.

Regards,
Bruce

From: Roger Marks [mailto:r.b.marks@ieee.org]<mailto:[mailto:r.b.marks@ieee.org]>
Sent: Friday, December 23, 2011 12:53 PM
To: Bruce Kraemer
Cc: STDS-802-SEC SEC
Subject: Re: [802SEC] *++++ EC ballot regarding IEEE 802 Liaison Letter to SC6 on proposed disposition of 8802 Standards ++++*

Bruce,

I'm not ready to vote on this motion yet. I'm happy with the statement (apart from two minor issues noted below), but I'm not comfortable with a motion that "The EC supports" the statement. I don't know precisely what that means. I think we should be voting on something more concrete, particularly since the OM provides for different types of position statements.

I'm not asking for the motion to be revised, because that's not practical at this time, but I would appreciate confirmation of the intent and expectations. It's my understanding that the intent is to approve the statement per 9.1.1 of the OM, as a communication from the LMSC to an external standards body. Is that your understanding as well?

As for the details of the statement, I have two comments:

(1) The statement opens by thanking SC6 for the "opportunity to comment on the proposal." I think the statement would be strengthened by a reference the document in which the comment was solicited.

(2) I think that the language "MAC address registry" may be too informal. Perhaps it would be better to say "OUI registry."

Regards,

Roger



On 12/16/2011 5:09 PM, Bruce Kraemer wrote:



This is a ballot restart using an updated document and the full SEC reflector.



Dear EC members,



During the ISC/JTC1/SC6 meeting that was held June 20, 2011 in San Diego IEEE 802 absorbed an action item to propose proper dispositions for 8802 standards. During the November Plenary and also during the Workshop we edited a letter containing a proposal for those dispositions of the 8802 standards.



Just after the workshop discussion I received  additional comments from Tony and Geoff that were worked into the letter.



The attached represents the net of several rounds of editing. Following the workshop I ran the draft by DY Kim (SC6 chair) and Robin Tasker (UK NB rep and author of the original letter).  These resulted in a bit of rewording to clarify intent but they are now fully in favor of the proposal. Changes made since the workshop are shown in red.



The letter must be submitted to SC6 before the Jan 10, 2012 submission deadline if it is to be considered during the February 2012 Guangzhou SC6 meeting.



I now request EC approval of the letter.



Paul has delegated the conduct of the 10 day EC electronic ballot on the following motion to me. Jon Rosdahl has seconded the motion.

I am announcing the possibility of an 'early close' to this ballot (see below).



Best regards,

Bruce





Motion

======



The EC supports the "IEEE 802 Liaison to SC6 regarding 8802 Standards  v8" with editorial changes as deemed necessary.



Move:   Bruce Kraemer

Second: Jon Rosdahl



Start of ballot: Friday 16th December

Close of ballot: Tuesday December 27 , 11:59PM AOE



Early close: As required in subclause 4.1.2.2 'Electronic Balloting' of the IEEE project 802 LAN/MAN Standards Committee (LMSC) Operations Manual, this is notice that, to ensure the release is provided in a timely manner, this ballot may close early once sufficient responses are received to clearly decide a matter.


Roger






----------
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.