|Thread Links||Date Links|
|Thread Prev||Thread Next||Thread Index||Date Prev||Date Next||Date Index|
These were moved and seconded last Friday. They have been edited to get over the hurdles, but are the same motions. Do I need to fully start over?
Director, Global Spectrum Strategy
Board Director, Dynamic Spectrum Alliance
Chair, IEEE 802.18 Radio Regulatory Technical Advisory Group
Chair Emeritus, IEEE 802.11af WLAN in TVWS
Chair, Wi-Fi Alliance Spectrum & Regulatory Task Group
From: Pat Thaler [mailto:pat.thaler@broadcom.
Sent: Monday, March 20, 2017 3:16 PM
To: Kennedy, Rich <email@example.com>
Subject: Re: [802SEC] Request for EC ballots
Are you the mover? Who is seconding the motions?
On Mon, Mar 20, 2017 at 12:10 PM, Kennedy, Rich <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
Dear EC Members:
Last Friday in the EC meeting, we discussed a number of documents approved by the 802.18 RR-TAG. As I stated at the time, when the EC was unable to come to an agreement of certain aspects of the motions, I would resubmit for EC ballot today. The revised motions, which now closely follow the suggestions of Roger Marks, are as follows:
“Approve document 18-17/54r0 and its cover letter in 18-17/57r0 as communication to ITU-R WP5C, granting the Technical Liaison to ITU-R and IEEE LMSC chair (or his delegate) editorial license, and submittal to the appropriate WPs on or before May 10, 2017. This approval is under LMSC OM “Procedure for communication with government bodies”’.”
“Approve document 18-17/55r0 and its cover letter in 18-17/56r0 as communication to ITU-R WP5A, granting the Technical Liaison to ITU-R and IEEE LMSC chair (or his delegate) editorial license, and submittal to the appropriate WPs on or before May 10, 2017. This approval is under LMSC OM “Procedure for communication with government bodies”.”
“Approve document 18-17/59r1 and its cover letter in 18-17/60r0 as our proposed update to Annex 17 of Document 5A/298-E (M.2003) in response to the ITU-R WP5A liaison, granting the Technical Liaison to ITU-R and IEEE LMSC chair (or his delegate) editorial license, and submittal to ITU-R WP5A on or before May 10, 2017. This approval is under LMSC OM “Procedure for communication with government bodies”.”
As these documents were all reviewed prior to and during the March 24th EC meeting, they have all should have been reviewed, and as the failures were based on the motions themselves, and not the text in the documents (with the exception of minor editorial comments), I would ask that these ballots be started as soon as possible.
In deference to the 802.15 and 802.18 members who contributed significant work on these items, I would ask that they be approved as soon as possible, to allow the ITU-R Technical Liaison to properly format and submit them. In their defense I would add that as responses to liaisons, although they represent contributions, labeling them as liaisons was not inappropriate, and the motion template employed was in fact the same slide 14 from the latest version of the EC templates that Roger informed me was the correct template.
In as much as these liaisons/contributions should have been easily approved in short order during our face-to-face, I think we need to look at the procedures for preparing documents for external submission. Although in this case there was sufficient time to redo the process, in most cases we will not have the time, and as a result we risk having the official IEEE 802 position, that both we and the regulators want, fail to have the impact in regulatory actions critical to the IEEE 802 family of standards.
IEEE 802.18 will prepare a proposal for our meeting, in Berlin.
Director, Global Spectrum Strategy