| Thread Links | Date Links | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Thread Prev | Thread Next | Thread Index | Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index |
|
Hello Apurva, Wed 15th is the earliest the WG can approve an updated Submission. The LMSC OM then states that a period of 5 days to allow the EC to object is required for a communication representing the position of a subgroup. That takes us to 20th July, which is too late. So we (802.11) have missed the boat on this. I used the wrong process for approval by the EC this time around. Next time around, I will hopefully use the correct process. Note that I’m strongly resistant to the EC attempting to directly make changes to a WG’s approved output, having seen the awkwardness this created with the DSRC output. If a motion
fails, comments made by EC members can be considered by the WG and may result in a new motion at a later time. Best Regards, Adrian P STEPHENS Tel: +44 (1793) 404825 (office) ---------------------------------------------- From: ***** IEEE 802 Executive Committee List ***** [mailto:STDS-802-SEC@ieee.org]
On Behalf Of Mody, Apurva (US) Adrian, Rich,
According to the Federal Register, the comments on this are due to the FCC on or before July 15th.
Reply Comments are due on or before August 14th.
So potentially we can still work on this and get it approved during the EC Opening Plenary unless 802.11 plans to send this out as a WG or 802.11/802.15 Regulatory Standing
Committee document. Thanks Apurva From: ***** IEEE 802 Executive Committee List ***** [mailto:STDS-802-SEC@ieee.org]
On Behalf Of Stephens, Adrian P *** WARNING *** Dear EC, Sorry, I was not sufficiently clear in my email. Result of motion “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.” Motion fails 6,4,1 (2/3 required, 60% received). Best Regards, Adrian P STEPHENS Tel: +44 (1793) 404825 (office) ---------------------------------------------- From: Stephens, Adrian P
Please check that I have recorded your vote correctly.
As this motion requires 2/3 approval (as a communication with the FCC), the motion fails. I’m not sure if a modified motion making the document more clearly specific to 802.11 will be brought in the next meeting as the deadline for comments will have expired. Best Regards, Adrian P STEPHENS Tel: +44 (1793) 404825 (office) ---------------------------------------------- From: Stephens, Adrian P
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) ---------------------------------------------- ---------- 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.
|