Re: [802SEC] +++ 10-day EC Email Ballot +++ EC motion on 802.11 response to FCC docket 15-47
Adrian,
I approve,
Thanks,
Tim.
At 09:37 AM 6/4/2015, Stephens, Adrian P wrote:
Dear 802 EC,
Whereas IEEE 802.11 has approved (In the WG: Y:47 N:0 A:2) the following
motion: ?To approve document 11-15/683r2 as our comments in FCC 15-47,
and forward to the IEEE 802 EC, for approval and transmittal to the
FCC.?
Move that EC approves transmission of document 11-15/683r2
(
https://mentor.ieee.org/802.11/dcn/15/11-15-0683-02-0reg-comments-in-fcc-15-47.docx
) to the FCC as a letter in response to FCC docket 15-47, granting the
LMSC Chair editorial license.
Moved: Stephens
Seconded: Rosdahl
Start of ballot: 2015-06-04
Close of ballot: 2015-06-14, 23:59 UTC-12
Early close: As required in subclause 4.1.2 'Voting rules' of the IEEE
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.
Sufficient responses to clearly decide this matter will be based on the
required majority for a motion under subclause 7.1.1 'Actions requiring
approval by a majority vote' item (h), 'Other motions brought to the
floor by members (when deemed in order by the Sponsor Chair)' of the IEEE
802 LAN/MAN Standards Committee (LMSC) Policies and Procedures.
Background information and rationale on specific form of
motion
1. The motion made at the EC telecon
on 2015-06-02 was modified from the motion made in 802.11, by the
addition of a sentence intended to clarify possible future
intentions. The sentence was suggested by the 802.11 REG SC
chair, based on discussion he had with various parties after
approval of the WG motion. Time ran out on the telecon.
2. There was an email thread on the
EC reflector, abstracted as below?
a. Apurva: ?It would be better
if IEEE 802 provides constructive suggestions to the FCC?
b. Roger: ?I propose to add the following
at the end of the introductory "COMMENTS OF IEEE 802"
paragraph? "Other standards developed under
IEEE 802 may be more suitable for adaptation and use under CBRS
rules."?
c. Ben: ?I do not think Roger's
addition addresses Apurva's concern, which is that the message lacks a
positive suggestion. ? I would advocate rewording so it is clear the
concerns from 802 are not uniquely 802.11 WG's concerns.?
I have given some thought to the role of the EC in communications from a
WG concerning that WG to an external body. The LMSC rules
require that such communications pass through EC for motion at 2/3
approval. The LMSC rules do not limit what the EC can do with
that document.
But, I believe we should limit what the EC attempts to do with such a
document. IMHO, it should limit its actions to editorial
corrections and clarifications. If it fails to approve a
document, then comments on its substantive comment could be sent
back to the WG, so that the WG can adjust the document, and
send it back for approval. Recent experience with the DSRC report
confirms to me that this is the way we should handle such matters.
I believe that attempting to modify the substantive (i.e., non-editorial)
content in the EC perilously moves its role away from keeper of the
process into technical judge and jury.
Given these beliefs and the history recited above, I have moved the
original motion as approved by 802.11. If the motion is
defeated, I will collect comments to be sent to 802.11 for
consideration in a subsequent attempt to communicate with the FCC.
Also, I would like to see the Chair?s Guidelines provide
clarification to bound and streamline this process in future. But
that is another debate.
On the specific changes requested, I think both the changes
proposed are essentially harmless. But I think both are out of
scope (i.e., not relevant) in a response originated by the 802.11 WG
specific to WLAN, which is the scope of this communication.
Notwithstanding the above discussion, I did modify the motion from
that presented to the WG, to add the ?, granting the LMSC Chair editorial
license?. I believe this should always be present,
because I wouldn?t want to insist the LMSC Chair sent an uncorrected
liaison where he, e.g., spots a speeling misteak at the last
moment.
Best Regards,
Adrian P STEPHENS
Tel: +44 (1793) 404825 (office)
Tel: +1 (971) 330 6025 (mobile)
----------------------------------------------
Intel Corporation (UK) Limited
Registered No. 1134945 (England)
Registered Office: Pipers Way, Swindon SN3 1RJ
VAT No: 860 2173 47
---------- This email is sent from the 802 Executive Committee email
reflector. This list is maintained by Listserv.
Tim Godfrey
tim.godfrey@ieee.org
mobile 913-706-3777
----------
This email is sent from the 802 Executive Committee email reflector. This list is maintained by Listserv.