On 2013/03/04, at 12:08 PM, Michael Lynch wrote:
Roger,
1. If you find the 2nd sentence of paragraph 11 unintelligible then please propose new wording.
Maybe it was intended to be two sentences, like this:
"In light of this proposal we would like to emphasize the importance of ensuring that the entire spectrum under channel 51 will continue to be utilized by licensed, unlicensed, wireless microphones or TV operation. IEEE 802 Standards for operation in TVWS have been and are being developed to minimize interference to DTV reception in compliance with FCC rules."
I don't know the intent since I did not participate.
2. You may not be aware of the issues that have been occurring with regards to the EC reflector. Therefor it seemed that there was no other way to guarantee that this email would ever reach the intended audience other than to use the private list. I'm adding the reflector to this response. Let's see if it will work this week. My last several attempts to use it ended up with messages not being delivered. At Paul's request I was in contact with the SA and they were not able to resolve the matter. In that case last week the use of the private list was agreed to by Paul and with the tight timeline that this ballot is on it seemed best to use it to better guaranty being received by the EC..
I don't see your message in the archive. Maybe this response will end up there.
3. Paul did very clearly authorize me to conduct this ballot. Do you feel that there was another reference other than 8.2 that should have been used or, that under 8.2, he is not authorized to delegate to someone else the role of conducting a ballot? The reference to 8.2 was also used on the very recent comments on the FCC's 3.5 GHz NPRM without objection by anyone. In reviewing 8.2 I see nothing that prevents the Sponsor Chair from delegating the function of communicating with governmental bodies. On the other hand if the Sponsor Chair is the only one who can communicate with governmental organizations then indeed he should be the sole point of contact for all communications to and from the FCC, Ofcom, ITU, etc. Maybe the OM needs to be revised (again) to make it clear that this role can be delegated?
I agree that the issue I've raised could have been applied to past
ballots as well. Still, the precedent of ignoring the OM doesn't
invalidate the OM. 8.2 doesn't specify who conducts the ballot, but it
does state who needs to issue the statement (though the meaning of
"issue" might be debated). There are also some specific post-ballot
elements of 8.2.1 that I suspect have not been observed in the past
("Such communications shall be copied to the Sponsor and the IEEE-SA
Standards Board Secretary and shall be posted on the IEEE 802 LMSC web
site. The IEEE 802 LMSC web site shall state that all such position
statements shall expire five years after issue.")
Roger
Best regards,
Mike
From: Roger Marks [mailto:r.b.marks@ieee.org]
Sent: Monday, March 04, 2013 9:46 AM
To: Michael Lynch
Cc: John_DAmbrosia@dell.com; jrosdahl@ieee.org; p.nikolich@ieee.org;
pthaler@broadcom.com; gilb@ieee.org;clint.chaplin@gmail.com;
tony@jeffree.co.uk; David_Law@ieee.org; bkraemer@ieee.org;
bheile@ieee.org; subirdas21@gmail.com;apurva.mody@baesystems.com;
freqmgr@ieee.org; shellhammer@ieee.org; maximilian.riegel@nsn.com;
Geoffrey Thompson; Everett O. (Buzz) Rigsbee; Canchi, Radhakrishna;
John Lemon; Paul Nikolich (paul.nikolich@ATT.NET)
Subject: Re: +++ 10 Day EC Ballot - Reply Comments to the FCC's
Incentive Auction Proposal - Docket No. 12-268 +++
Mike,
I have a few editorial and procedural comments.
(1) The second sentence of paragraph 11 is unintelligible.
(2) Conducting a ballot by circulation to a closed email list does not meet the requirement of OM 4.1.2: "Provision shall be made for the IEEE 802 LMSC membership to observe and comment on Sponsor electronic ballots. All comments from those who are not members of the Sponsor shall be considered."
(3) Since the language indicates OM Subclause 8.2, then the elements of 8.2.1(b) apply. In particular: "All IEEE 802 LMSC communications to government bodies shall be issued by the Sponsor Chair..."
Roger
On 2013/03/02, at 12:10 PM, Michael Lynch wrote:
Dear EC,
During the January wireless interim meeting in Vancouver 802.18 began work on a response to the FCC's 3.5 GHz NPRM proceeding. It was not possible to complete the response at that meeting so a series of conference calls were announced to complete the work. Two calls, one on January 24th and the second on January 31st, were used to complete the document Doc. 18-12-0109-06. The document was approved by 802.18 by a vote of 5 yes, 0 no and 1 abstention, submitted to and approved by the EC and filed with the FCC.
During the discussion of any other business the group decided to continue to have the Thursday evening calls during the period of February 7th to March 14th. The positive result of that action was the approval on February 28th of proposed reply comments to the FCC's "Incentive Auction" proposal (Docket No. 12-268). This takes advantage of the FCC having extended the reply comment date to March 12th.
I have asked Paul to allow me to conduct a ten day EC email ballot to approve submitting the reply comments (Doc. 18-13-0016-06-0000) 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 18-13-0016-06-0000 subject to the early close provision of OM Subclause 4.1.2.."
Moved: Mike Lynch
Seconded: Apurva Mody
Link to the document:
https://mentor.ieee.org/802.18/dcn/13/18-13-0016-06-0000-draft-reply-
comments-to-fcc-tv-band-incentive-auction-nprm.doc
Reply comments are to be submitted to the FCC by March 12, 2013.
The ballot will start March 2nd and end on March 11th, 2013.
I am using the "private list" since once again there seems to be an issue with either delay or non-delivery when using the EC reflector. This has also impacted the 802.18 reflector.
Best regards,
Mike
+1.972.814.4901