Paul,
What's new about that policy that conflicts with our existing procedures? How will policy changes be embodied in IEEE-SA and 802 procedures?
I did see this:
The name of the Organization Unit responsible for the Public Policy Position Statement shall be included in the Statement, along with the date of its approval by the governing body. Each organizational unit position statement shall also contain the following disclaimer at the close of the formal statement and before any background or attached materials: “This statement was developed by the [insert name of IEEE organizational unit] and represents the considered judgment of a group of IEEE members with expertise in the subject field. The positions taken by [insert name of IEEE organizational unit] do not necessarily reflect the views of IEEE or its other Organizational Units.”
I did not see anything about a need to "clearly acknowledge that other technologies have different and conflicting and/or competing interests."
Roger
On September 20, 2017 at 9:37:47 AM, paul.nikolich (paul.nikolich@att.net) wrote:
Roger,
Yes, see IEEE policy,
section 15.
Regards,
--Paul
-------- Original message --------
Date: 9/20/17 11:01 AM (GMT-05:00)
Subject: Re: [802SEC] +++10 day ECM (early close)+++ FCC NOI
Response
Paul,
Bob and I agreed on a revision of section VIII and turned our
proposal over to Rich to decide how he wants to proceed. I'm not
planning any further editing.
I do, however, question the detailed edit that you are proposing.
The LMSC Policies and Procedures ("Accepted by SASB 12 June 2014")
says:
Subgroup public statements shall be identified in the first
paragraph of the public statement as being specifically the
position of the subgroup. These statements shall be issued by the
subgroup Chair and shall include the Sponsor Chair in the
distribution. Such statements shall not bear the IEEE, the IEEE-SA,
or the Sponsor logos.
Is a new IEEE-SA procedure in place?
Roger
On September 20, 2017 at 6:06:57 AM, Paul
Nikolich (paul.nikolich@att.net)
wrote:
Rich, Bob, Roger and All,
The guidance I received from Gordon Day, the chair of
the IEEE Global Public Policy Committee, yesterday is as
follows:
"If 802 or SA is to submit a response to the NOI, I
think that, at a minimum, the document must prominently state that
it is responding only from the perspective of 802's technical
domain (appropriately described) and clearly acknowledge that other
technologies have different and conflicting and/or competing
interests. It can't be seen as a position representing all of
IEEE."
I consider Gordon's recommendation an editorial change
and recommend we include language to that effect in the opening
Introduction section. Bob and Roger, since you'll be working
on wording tweaks today, please add the language. Also, add a
signature from me as the 802 LMSC Chairman. Thank
you.
Regards,
--Paul
------ Original Message ------
Cc:
Sent: 9/19/2017 12:47:59 AM
Subject: Re: [802SEC] +++10 day ECM (early close)+++ FCC
NOI Response
I would appreciate it. Paul wants
unanimity.
---------- 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.
|