Michale and Adrian,
802.18 is the Radio Regulatory TAG. It is chartered to communicate with regulatory and governmental bodies on radio regulatory matters, e.g. spectrum.
There are regulatory and governmental bodies that deal with matters other than radio regulatory which impact IEEE 802 standards. For example, Energy Efficiency (Energy Star in the US), safety, automotive requirements (e.g. there is a requirement for the amount
of time that it takes for back-up cameras to become operational after starting the car), Smart Grid.
The rules for communicating with government and intergovernmental bodies are covered in our Operatrions Manual 8.2. That explains why some communications need 802 approval and some do not. Communications can either be from IEEE 802 LMSC (8.2.1) or from an IEEE
802 subgroup (8.2.2).
A communication that states that it comes from IEEE 802 under 8.2.1 requires 2/3 approval by the Sponsor.
A communication that states that it comes from an IEEE 802 subgroup under 8.2.2 requires 75% approval by the subgroup. Such communications must be sent to the Sponsor members for a 5 day review period during which a motion to block can be made. If a motion
to block is made, release of the communication is held until an EC letter ballot can be held to see if it is approved.
So governmental communications need EC approval if they are IEEE 802 communications. Other communications are subject to EC review but don't need approval unless a motion to block is raised.
IEEE 802.3 or IEEE 802.1 have communications with ITU-T or ISO groups from time to time that aren't of particular interest to the rest of IEEE 802 (e.g. some are about wiring standards). There would be no reason to require those communications to go through
IEEE LMSC motions.
BTW - I don't recall any motions to block being made in the past. The EC rule on that seems a little unclear as it says that there is a motion to block made followed by a letter ballot to approve. Does that mean that we would first vote on whether to block
the release and then vote to approve the release? It seems to make more sense to say release is held until a vote on the motion to block completes. If the motion fails the communication can be released and if it succeeds the communication is disapproved and
can't be released.
Regards,
Pat
-----Original Message-----
From: ***** IEEE 802 Executive Committee List ***** [
mailto:STDS-802-SEC@ieee.org] On Behalf Of Michael Lynch
Sent: Friday, May 23, 2014 9:41 AM
To: STDS-802-SEC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [802SEC] +++ 10-day EC Email Ballot +++ Scope change of IEEE 802.24 and process for adding Task Groups for new areas of interest
James,
It appears that I may have pushed "Send" too soon as I also agree with Adrian as regards .24's apparent ability to bypass our current regulatory methodology via 802.18 and communicate .24's own views directly to regulators and other governmental bodies.
I have to wonder why .24 needs to:
" Acts as a liaison and point of contact with regulatory agencies,...... government agencies..."
We have an existing method via 802.18 where 802 communicates with regulatory agencies and other governmental bodies. Why does .24 need to be exempted from that process?
Adrian correctly points out that recently we had a liaison exchange with 3GPP that was not presented via 802.18, and that clearly was done under the auspices of the sponsor chair.
Liaisons to government agencies normally are presented to 802.18 and approved (and edited as necessary) there. Is there some reason why .24 cannot do that, why it needs an exemption from that process?
So it seems I have two questions that need to be answered. This one and the one in my previous email.
Regards,
Mike
-----Original Message-----
From: ***** IEEE 802 Executive Committee List ***** [
mailto:STDS-802-SEC@ieee.org] On Behalf Of Stephens, Adrian P
Sent: Friday, May 23, 2014 11:12
To: STDS-802-SEC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [802SEC] +++ 10-day EC Email Ballot +++ Scope change of IEEE 802.24 and process for adding Task Groups for new areas of interest
I am currently undecided.
I have heartburn with this: " Acts as a liaison and point of contact with regulatory agencies, industry organizations, other SDOs, government agencies, IEEE societies, etc., for questions regarding the use of 802 standards in those emerging applications."
I am a little unclear in the 802 process about which liaisons require 802 approval and which do not. For example, 802 recently responded to an incoming liaison from 3GPP without involving 802. But we have also approved outgoing liaisons via 802.
In this case is the scope of "emerging applications" clear enough?
We also have a special process for regulatory. 802.11 creates input for 802.18, which is the single point of contact on regulatory matters. As I read it, the proposed 802.24 rules give it license to talk directly to regulatory on emerging standards,
even if that position is contrary to one developed in .18.
Waiting for some email discussion on the topic....
Best Regards,
Adrian P STEPHENS
Office: +44 (1793) 404 825
Mobile: +44 (7920) 084900
USA Mobile: +1 (408) 239 7485
----------------------------------------------
Intel Corporation (UK) Limited
Registered No. 1134945 (England)
Registered Office: Pipers Way, Swindon SN3 1RJ VAT No: 860 2173 47
-----Original Message-----
From: ***** IEEE 802 Executive Committee List ***** [
mailto:STDS-802-SEC@ieee.org] On Behalf Of James P. K. Gilb
Sent: Thursday, May 22, 2014 1:44 PM
To: STDS-802-SEC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: [802SEC] +++ 10-day EC Email Ballot +++ Scope change of IEEE 802.24 and process for adding Task Groups for new areas of interest
Dear EC members
Paul has delegated the conduct of the EC electronic ballot on the following motion to me.
This motion is taken under the normal process for approving EC actions and according to 7.1.1, item a) "Formation or modification of a subgroup, including its procedures, scope, and duties" requires a majority vote of those responding.
Moved: IEEE 802 Executive Committee approves the new scope of the IEEE
802.24 Vertical Applications TAG and the process for approving new work withing the TAG as described in document 24-14-0016-01-0000-TG-creation-process.pdf.
Moved: Gilb, Seconded: D'Ambrosia
Start of ballot: Thursday, 22 May 2014
Close of ballot: Sunday, 1 June 2014, 11:59 pm AOE.
For your convenience, I have attached the document.
James Gilb
----------
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.