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

Re: [802SEC] +++Request to conduct 10 Day EC Ballot on TVWS submission+++

Apurva,

I totally agree that this must be filed. Later today I will send an update on the voting on this ballot.

How to change the document editing process is something we can discuss in Vancouver (in addition to creating an ex parte input.) One possible method we could discuss is when something is the subject of contention (e.g. The deletions mentioned by Bruce) we could vote on keeping (or not) text. That would in my opinion require that every concerned WG has their chair present during the final editing and approval process in 802.18. In that way they can make certain that their WG's views are correctly represented versus only the view of a single TG.

I realize doing that means each WG will have to develop an overall position and the chair comes and presents it but unless someone can propose a better way that is what I will propose for the editing and approval process. Having TGs represented is fine but the responsibility for ensuring that the document supports the WG's interest rests with the chairs of the WGs.

Glad to discuss further.

Regards,

Mike

From: apurva mody <apurva_mody@yahoo.com>
Sent: Saturday, January 05, 2013 22:28
To: Bruce Kraemer <bkraemer@MARVELL.COM>; STDS-802-SEC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG <STDS-802-SEC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG>; Michael Lynch <MJLynch@mjlallc.com>; john notor <gnu@notor.com>
Subject: Re: [802SEC] +++Request to conduct 10 Day EC Ballot on TVWS submission+++
Mike, John,

I Approve the motion ...

I do have some reservations as pointed out by Bruce below.

We all know that January 21st is a deadline to file comments on this NPRM which is of immense importance to IEEE 802 given that four Working Groups are involved in TV Band Standardization. Earlier in 2012, we formulated the IEEE 802 position statement on TV Band White Spaces exactly for this day, so that we could build upon that document.

It is important that we (IEEE 802) file the comments on time for this NPRM.

I also hope that amends can be made through Ex Parte statements or reply comments, where what was left out can be discussed and included. This represents the view-points of many Working Groups including those of the 802.22 WG which presented the original comments document to the 802.18 TAG.

Also it would be nice to figure out if there is some alternate way to build consensus in 802.18 rather than striking things down just because one Voting Member disagrees with it as pointed out by Bruce below.

Regards
Apurva

From: Bruce Kraemer <bkraemer@MARVELL.COM>
To: STDS-802-SEC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Sent: Friday, January 4, 2013 3:01 PM
Subject: Re: [802SEC] +++Request to conduct 10 Day EC Ballot on TVWS submission+++

Mike,
 
I vote disapprove.
During the course of December the document content changed significantly. It no longer reflects the interests of 802.11.
 
A few Comments on the changes and change process:
 
1.       Paragraph 5 (stricken)– why remove? 802 created 802.11af specifically for TVWS.
2.       Paragraph 6 (stricken)– good paragraph supporting unlicensed. Peter who has cellular agenda objected to any strong unlicensed statement and it was consequently removed.
3.       New paragraph 7- paragraph only talks about rural but we support unlicensed spectrum in urban areas too – in fact without it we have no business case- this sentence is not what our message should be which is we need guaranteed at least 3 channels in urban areas for WiFi in TVWS to have a business case.
4.       Paragraphs 9/10/11 (stricken in green) – we can at least keep 11.
5.       Paragraphs 13/14 (stricken in green/yellow) – we can at least keep 14.
6.       Paragraph 17 – this should be kept in but was removed “IEEE 802 supports allowing part 15 whitespace devices in the guard bands and the duplex gaps. “
 
Regards,
Bruce
 
From: Michael Lynch [mailto:MJLynch@mjlallc.com]
Sent: Thursday, January 03, 2013 7:19 AM
To: Bruce Kraemer
Subject: RE: +++Request to conduct 10 Day EC Ballot+++
 
Bruce,

Rounding out the extension to the 11th of January is fine. I presume that no one will object to having the additional time.

Best regards,

Mike
From: Bruce Kraemer <bkraemer@marvell.com>
Sent: Thursday, January 03, 2013 08:18
To: Michael Lynch <MJLynch@mjlallc.com>; STDS-802-SEC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG <STDS-802-SEC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG>
Subject: RE: +++Request to conduct 10 Day EC Ballot+++
Mike,
I would support an extension – could we round it out to Friday January 11th?
 
Bruce
 
From: ***** IEEE 802 Executive Committee List ***** [mailto:STDS-802-SEC@ieee.org] On Behalf Of Michael Lynch
Sent: Wednesday, January 02, 2013 9:26 PM
To: STDS-802-SEC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [802SEC] +++Request to conduct 10 Day EC Ballot+++
 
Pat and EC,
 
I agree with Pat and had considered a different date. Will it be acceptable to extend the ballot to January 9th?
 
Please advise if there are any objections. Thus far there have been two votes, both to approve, from myself and Steve Shellhammer.
 
Best regards,
 
Mike
 
From: ***** IEEE 802 Executive Committee List ***** [mailto:STDS-802-SEC@ieee.org] On Behalf Of Pat Thaler
Sent: Wednesday, January 02, 2013 7:22 PM
To: STDS-802-SEC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [802SEC] +++Request to conduct 10 Day EC Ballot+++
 
Dear Michael,
 
I’d like to request that this vote be extended since it was started on December 24 and many people took the time between that and January 1 off.
 
Regards,
Pat
 
From: ***** IEEE 802 Executive Committee List ***** [mailto:STDS-802-SEC@ieee.org] On Behalf Of Michael Lynch
Sent: Monday, December 24, 2012 3:55 PM
To: STDS-802-SEC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: [802SEC] +++Request to conduct 10 Day EC Ballot+++
 
Dear EC,
 
At the November IEEE 802 Plenary in San Antonio work was begun in 802.18 on an input to the FCC regarding FCC TV Band Incentive Auction NPRM  and, in particular, on the license exempt use of a portion of that spectrum. It was not possible to finish that document in San Antonio so 802.18 held two conference calls and completed the document. The final result was that the comments were approved by a vote of 7 yes, 0 no and 1 abstain.
 
I have asked Paul to allow me to conduct a ten day EC email ballot to approve submitting the comments (Doc. 18-12-0109-08) to the FCC.
 
Paul’s response to my request is:
 
“I will authorize a 10 day EC email ballot, to be conducted by Mike Lynch, for the following motion.”
 
Motion:
 
“To approve, under OM Subclause 8.2, document 18-12-0109-08 subject to the early close provision of OM Subclause 4.1.2.2."
 
Moved Mike Lynch, Seconded Apurva Mody
 
Link to the document is:
 
https://mentor.ieee.org/802.18/dcn/12/18-12-0109-08-0000-draft-802-comments-fcc-tvband-auction-nprm.doc”
 
Comments are to be submitted to the FCC by January 25th, 2013 and reply comments by March 12th, 2013.
 
The ballot will start December 26th..
 
The ballot will close January 4th, unless enough ballots have been received to meet the early closure provision of OM Subclause 4.1.2.2.
 
Regards and Happy Holidays to all,
 
Mike
+1.972.814.4901
---------- 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.