| Pat,
I understand, I was using the shorter time frame as an example. I have never seen anyone put an expiry on a submission to the FCC or other regulatory body
attached to comments from an SDO. I don't think I have seen it on an ex parte either.
I think about the perception of those reading such comments, some trained in engineering, some legislators, some USA delegations, other country delegations, lawyers, some so detailed, that when they see an expiry date, that very well may raise questions and red flags I think the rules do not cover this situation, so change the rules. I do not see signatures of the head of other bodies signing these comments, for to do so,
has other implications. It is why there are liaisons. The FCC takes the responses to the trained technology groups as well as other interested parties, they are posted for all to see. Why keep this rule when in fact 802 may be the only one to have it and to use it goes against what is proper edicate in these matters. One must conform to the rules of regulatory bodies. They do not ask for an expiry date, smartly so. And the rule that the Chair of 802 needs to sign every submission seems like another issue that we alone would be doing. I would argue that a news release, though all have a chance to voice opinions and vote as they do with 18, as news has become global, does not get signed by the chair of 802. Usually the WG chair is quoted, with the overview of the Chair of 802. I do not see other IEEE bodies following this rule either. So, maybe we should change it in the OM and P&P as it relates to regulatory bodies. If the Chair should "oversee" he does that by virtue of being a voting member of 18, and while not voting, get's asked, for permission, copied on all communications and issues before anything goes back to a regulatory body. He is involved.
Thanks, Sincerely, Nancy
Thanks much, Sincerely, Nancy On Mar 7, 2013, at 2:41 PM, Pat Thaler wrote: I think you may have misunderstood my comment. I wasn’t suggesting that we put 6 months as an expiry on responses to governmental organizations. My point was that 5 years as specified in our current rules is a good length to put and if our opinion changes before then and is different in a future response that’s okay. After all, new information or compromise may occur in any such discussions or the questions may evolve resulting in a different response earlier than originally expected. Our rules already require that our submissions indicate which body (e.g. IEEE 802 as a whole or a subgroup) a statement is from. Pat From: ***** IEEE 802 Executive Committee List ***** [mailto:STDS-802-SEC@ieee.org] On Behalf Of Nancy Bravin
Sent: Thursday, March 07, 2013 11:27 AM
To: STDS-802-SEC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [802SEC] +++ 10 Day EC Ballot - Reply Comments to the FCC's Incentive Auction Proposal - Docket No. 12-268 +++ The IETF process with Draft's has a 6 month extendable date, at each revision that Draft is extended to the new "6 month date" at which point it will be dropped, changed or made a protocol if finished. The process they use is for drafts, ours has a 2 year which can be extended of course. But this is not related to a regulatory request for comment, in fact, we are usually requested to respond, and mentioned in the initial document as a 802 Always in such a response document is a footnote, that the submission does not represent the views of, IEEE, IEEESA etc, and sometimes if it is a group within a group one could say it doesn't represent the views of all of 802. By saying this it implies that it is only a response of those involved, a process through 802.18, the 802.18 Chair's signature, which is as it should be it seems to me. The 802 Chair is a non voting member of the EC except in cases of ties, having his signature, instead of his awareness of any issues may present DySpan's recent submission to a regulatory response had the following footnote: 2 This document represents the views of the IEEE DySPAN-SC. It does not necessarily represent the views of the IEEE as a whole or the IEEE Standards Association as a whole. We have similar footnotes, which states and implies that others in the community may not agree with a position. IF that is the case, then the comments are just that, consensus comments at that time as a response. IF you date something 6 months, or 1 year lets say, and another request for comments comes out on something already responded to within that period, will you be able to respond with a different view if the voting members, armed with new information and/or technology has changed? Maybe it is a question for legal. On Mar 7, 2013, at 9:46 AM, Pat Thaler wrote:
Generally, an expiry date on a document ensures that it goes away at some point even if it isn't replaced. It doesn't mean that it will always be valid for that long. For example, some of our drafts and all IETF IDs have an expiration date but they often are replaced with a new draft before it expires. I don't think we send out a position statement expecting to contradict it 6 months later. Yes we may refine it and send out a new statement before 5 years. New information or new participation might change our views more radically, but it isn't what we expect when we send a statement out. It would undermine the usefulness of a position statement if we sent it out with a very short expiration. Regards, Pat -----Original Message----- From: Michael Lynch [ mailto:MJLynch@mjlallc.com] Sent: Wednesday, March 06, 2013 9:04 AM To: James P. K. Gilb; Roger Marks Cc: EC List ( STDS-802-SEC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG); John_DAmbrosia@dell.com; jrosdahl@ieee.org Rosdahl; p.nikolich@ieee.org Nikolich; Pat Thaler; clint.chaplin@gmail.comChaplin; Tony Jeffree; David_Law@ieee.org Law; bkraemer@ieee.org < bkraemer@ieee.org> Kraemer; Bob Heile; subirdas21@gmail.com Subir; "Buzz paul.nikolich@ATT.NET" <""apurva.mody"@baesystems.com SSA) Mody, freqmgr@ieee.org Lynch < freqmgr@ieee.org>, shellhammer@ieee.org J Shellhammer < shellhammer@ieee.org>,Riegel Maximilian < maximilian.riegel@nsn.com>,Thompson Geoffrey < thompson@ieee.org>,Everett O. Rigsbee < BRigsBieee@comcast.net>,Radhakrishna Canchi < Radhakrishna.Canchi@kyocera.com>,John Lemon < jlemon@ieee.org>,Paul Nikolich " "> Subject: RE: +++ 10 Day EC Ballot - Reply Comments to the FCC's Incentive Auction Proposal - Docket No. 12-268 +++ James, Another item that doesn't seem to fit our filings with the FCC or any other regulatory body: they are not position statements or papers and should not have a five year life cycle. "All IEEE 802 LMSC communications to government bodies shall be issued by the IEEE 802 LMSC Chair as the view of IEEE 802 LMSC (stated in the first paragraph of the statement). 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." For example what we filed after the January meeting may not be the view of the wireless groups by the time they meet in September. So to have them considered as IEEE 802 position statements or papers doesn't fit their intended purpose. Our views can and sometimes do change in less than a year rather than the five years referenced in the OM. Regards, Mike -----Original Message----- From: James Gilb [ mailto:jpgilb@gmail.com] On Behalf Of James P. K. Gilb Sent: Wednesday, March 06, 2013 1:47 AM To: Roger Marks Cc: Michael Lynch; EC List ( STDS-802-SEC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG); John_DAmbrosia@dell.com; jrosdahl@ieee.org Rosdahl; p.nikolich@ieee.org Nikolich; Pat Thaler; clint.chaplin@gmail.com Chaplin; Tony Jeffree; David_Law@ieee.org Law; bkraemer@ieee.org < bkraemer@ieee.org> Kraemer; Bob Heile; subirdas21@gmail.com Subir; "Buzz paul.nikolich@ATT.NET" <""apurva.mody"@baesystems.com SSA) Mody, freqmgr@ieee.org Lynch < freqmgr@ieee.org>, shellhammer@ieee.org J Shellhammer < shellhammer@ieee.org>,Riegel Maximilian < maximilian.riegel@nsn.com>,Thompson Geoffrey < thompson@ieee.org>,Everett O. Rigsbee < BRigsBieee@comcast.net>,Radhakrishna Canchi < Radhakrishna.Canchi@kyocera.com>,John Lemon < jlemon@ieee.org>,Paul Nikolich " "> Subject: Re: +++ 10 Day EC Ballot - Reply Comments to the FCC's Incentive Auction Proposal - Docket No. 12-268 +++ All With regards to item 3), unfortunately, there is some overlap between the OM and the P&P. The P&P requires: - 2/3 approval for public statements - Public statements are only issued by the Chair. Both of these are in subclauses that can only be added to, hence these requirements come from AudCom and it is highly unlikely we can change them. As for "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.", we can and probably should change that in some fashion. IMHO, it would be nice to have a single area on the web site that does contain EC positions so that we don't contradict ourselves or issue the same position twice. I also agree with Roger that the argument that the OM was not followed in the past does not mean that it should not be followed now. James Gilb On 03/04/2013 11:38 AM, Roger Marks wrote: 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
Sent: Monday, March 04, 2013 9:46 AM
To: Michael Lynch
Geoffrey Thompson; Everett O. (Buzz) Rigsbee; Canchi, Radhakrishna;
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:
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
----------
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.
|