hi Roger,
been working on your questions, please see below for some explanations.
(1) 18-21-0117-03 includes extensive markups to the existing M.1801-2, but most (nearly all) of these are NOT original; they were included in the last Working Document. As a result, it's very difficult for anyone [whether
in 802 or in ITU] to determine exactly what is being proposed by 802 here, to review it, and to incorporate it. The changes should be indicated with respect to a specific baseline (e.g., M-1801-2, or a clean copy of the Working Document). If there is a reason
for the proposed format, I'm willing to hear it.
=== as noted there have been several submissions on these 2 recommendations over the past year+. at this point after the last submissions, they were noted by WPW 5A and not acted upon. with them not acted upon, these submissions
need to be markups back to the original ITU-R M.1450-5 (2014) and ITU-R M.1801-2 (2013) as is indicated in the introduction and discussion of each of these documents. so at this point nothing from the previous contributions
has been adopted, why the full markups.
(2) It seems that the situation is similar with 18-21-0116-03 and M.1450.
=== as above.
(3) The introductory paragraph to 18-21-0117-03 should follow the template of 18-21-0116-03.
=== when i compare they look the same, considering one is for M.1450 and the other is for M.1801.
all:
***** i see it, the links in the motion got split when i updated to rev03 and when i checked them before sending i got lucky and hit the right ½. apologies for the split links. corrected links:
•
Motion:
Move to approve documents https://mentor.ieee.org/802.18/dcn/21/18-21-0117-03-0000-proposed-modifications-to-itu-r-m-1801-2.docx
and https://mentor.ieee.org/802.18/dcn/21/18-21-0116-03-0000-proposed-modifications-to-itu-r-m-1450-5.docx
for ITU-R M.1450-5 and M.1801-2 updated edits, respectively. For review and approval for submission to ITU-R WP 5A via ITU-R Liaison before contribution deadline for WP 5A’s next meeting. The Chair of 802.18 is authorized to make editorial changes as necessary.
(4) I don't understand "This EC motion is per IEEE 802 OM 7.2.1 Procedure, P&P 7.1 b) (majority response) and P&P 7.1.2 (2/3 approval of votes cast) for communication with government bodies and public statements." Could you
please check the section numbers [does "7.1 b)" mean "7.1.1"?] Also, it seems to say that approval requires both majority and 2/3. What is the result is in between?
=== this came up a few years back when Ben asked a question how many needed to respond and some research was done with the question that drove to these clauses and what i have put in ballots ever sense so if others have questions
again, then this is where i was pointed to before. i looked up and compared to the latest LMSC P&P (2021) that has been updated since and no changes from back then. 7.1 b) in the P&P ends with “…
provided a majority of all the Voting Members of the Sponsor
responded”. hence only need a majority to respond. and from the previous discussions P&P 7.1.2 has 2/3 approval for public statements, so following that it takes 2/3 approval of votes cast.
if these answer your questions, then maybe there are no changes needed in the 2 submissions?
thanks
jay