Re: [802SEC] +++ 10 Day EC Ballot - Reply Comments to the FCC's Incentive Auction Proposal - Docket No. 12-268 +++
I think the issue is that one doesn't want to put a short time span on such a document - others aren't on theirs and it may devalue our statement to say that it expires in 3 months or 6 months or whatever. On the other hand, a long time period like a year or more (and especially 5 years) is likely to see some migration of our views.
Any liaison statement or position statement is clearly the current to when it is made and may change in the future - I don't see that anything is gained by speculating about how long it is good for.
Any statement should have a date when it was approved which at least allows people to see what is newer and what is older.
Therefore, putting an expiry date on our regulatory communications seems at best unnecessary and at worst undermining our efforts.
Regards,
Pat
-----Original Message-----
From: ***** IEEE 802 Executive Committee List ***** [mailto:STDS-802-SEC@ieee.org] On Behalf Of James P. K. Gilb
Sent: Wednesday, March 06, 2013 11:46 PM
To: STDS-802-SEC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [802SEC] +++ 10 Day EC Ballot - Reply Comments to the FCC's Incentive Auction Proposal - Docket No. 12-268 +++
John
I don't intend to be cute, my apologies if the email came off wrong. I
am being serious about this.
However, I don't understand what specific issues are in the P&P or OM
that actually causes insurmountable problems with regards to the
document submission. The requirements are:
- Approved by 2/3 vote of EC (we have been doing this)
- Issued by the Sponsor Chair (adds one step to the process)
- Copied to the Sponsor (already done) and IEEE SA Standards Board
Secretary (we don't do this, but perhaps we should?)
- Posted on the website (all .18 submissions already do this as they
are on mentor, linked from the IEEE 802 LMSC web site)
- Have a statement on the web site that says the position statements
expires in 5 years after issue (not done).
The last one probably needs some tuning. The implication of any filing
is that it is the current IEEE 802 position at the time of filing, and
presumably, for the near future. What good would a communication be if
it was no longer valid after it was issued?
So I plead ignorance, please tell me what are the specific problems that
I have missed?
James Gilb
On 03/06/2013 10:21 PM, John Notor wrote:
> This is all very cute, but does not really address the issues related
> to regulatory bodies, whose policies and rules about document
> submissions do not revolve around IEEE 802 policies or operating
> procedures.
>
> A little common sense here would be helpful, and a recognition of
> what influence we've had since the beginning of 802.18 using the
> process to date.
>
> John
>
> John Notor Sent from my iPhone Mobile: 1 (408) 799-2738
>
>
> On Mar 6, 2013, at 7:48 PM, "James P. K. Gilb" <gilb@ieee.org>
> wrote:
>
> Mike
>
> If a position statement has an expiration date, then we need to state
> that in the document. If it is less than 5 years, then it should say
> so.
>
> If the position changes, then we need to issue a new position
> statement.
>
> BTW: Having a timeout on the position statement of some duration (it
> is in the OM and so we can select it) is a good idea for just the
> reason you state.
>
> James Gilb
>
> On 03/06/2013 09:04 AM, Michael Lynch wrote:
>> James,
>>
>> Another item that doesn't seem to fit our filings with the FCC or
>> any other regulatory body: they are not position statements or
>> papers and should not have a five year life cycle.
>>
>> "All IEEE 802 LMSC communications to government bodies shall be
>> issued by the IEEE 802 LMSC Chair as the view of IEEE 802 LMSC
>> (stated in the first paragraph of the statement). Such
>> communications shall be copied to the Sponsor and the IEEE-SA
>> Standards Board Secretary and shall be posted on the IEEE 802 LMSC
>> web site. The IEEE 802 LMSC web site shall state that all such
>> position statements shall expire five years after issue."
>>
>> For example what we filed after the January meeting may not be the
>> view of the wireless groups by the time they meet in September. So
>> to have them considered as IEEE 802 position statements or papers
>> doesn't fit their intended purpose. Our views can and sometimes do
>> change in less than a year rather than the five years referenced in
>> the OM.
>>
>> Regards,
>>
>> Mike
>>
>> -----Original Message----- From: James Gilb
>> [mailto:jpgilb@gmail.com] On Behalf Of James P. K. Gilb Sent:
>> Wednesday, March 06, 2013 1:47 AM To: Roger Marks Cc: Michael
>> Lynch; EC List (STDS-802-SEC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG);
>> John_DAmbrosia@dell.com; jrosdahl@ieee.org Rosdahl;
>> p.nikolich@ieee.org Nikolich; Pat Thaler; clint.chaplin@gmail.com
>> Chaplin; Tony Jeffree; David_Law@ieee.org Law; bkraemer@ieee.org
>> <bkraemer@ieee.org> Kraemer; Bob Heile; subirdas21@gmail.com Subir;
>> "Buzz paul.nikolich@ATT.NET" <""apurva.mody"@baesystems.com SSA)
>> Mody,freqmgr@ieee.org Lynch <freqmgr@ieee.org>,shellhammer@ieee.org
>> J Shellhammer <shellhammer@ieee.org>,Riegel Maximilian
>> <maximilian.riegel@nsn.com>,Thompson Geoffrey
>> <thompson@ieee.org>,Everett O. Rigsbee
>> <BRigsBieee@comcast.net>,Radhakrishna Canchi
>> <Radhakrishna.Canchi@kyocera.com>,John Lemon <jlemon@ieee.org>,Paul
>> Nikolich " "> Subject: Re: +++ 10 Day EC Ballot - Reply Comments to
>> the FCC's Incentive Auction Proposal - Docket No. 12-268 +++
>>
>> All
>>
>
----------
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.