RE: stds-802-16: 802 SEC Ballot to Approve Response to FCC FNPRM
FYI: The 802 SEC ballot to approve the comments to the FCC (see
below) has passed. There were no negative votes. I'll make sure you
have access to the comments as edited for submission.
I want to add my thanks to Marianna Goldhammer, whom I failed to
acknowledge in my previous message. She helped bring the issue to the
attention of 802.16 before the meeting. She also submitted a proposal
to Vic in advance of the meeting, and she brought it to TG4 as the
basis of the TG4 position. She, along with a number of other 802.16
people, spent quite a few hours in the regulatory meetings. Thanks to
David, Marianna, and all of the other 802.16 participants who worked
to develop a consensus 802 position that we could support. The result
is an excellent achievement for the 802 wireless groups.
When the FCC asks for another round of comments, I'm sure we'll be
hearing more on this topic.
Roger
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Roger B. Marks [mailto:r.b.marks@ieee.org]
>Sent: Wednesday, July 18, 2001 8:32 AM
>To: stds-802-16@ieee.org
>Subject: stds-802-16: 802 SEC Ballot to Approve Response to FCC FNPRM
>
>
>As noted below, the 802 Executive Committee is running an email
>ballot, until July 28, to approve comments to the FCC regarding FNPRM
>99-231. Why is this happening? Here is a brief history from my
>vantage point:
>
>*An 802.11 ad hoc regulatory committee, chaired by Vic Hayes,
>developed a draft position statement in conference calls and in many
>hours of editorial and voting meetings last week. A number of 802.16
>people attended; David Chauncey, the 802.16 Regulatory Liaison, was
>the primary 802.16 contact. The process was not without controversy,
>but hard work on the part of the participants let to a unified
>position.
>
>*Vic intended to submit the comments as a joint position paper of the
>802.11, 802.15, and 802.16 Working Groups and therefore asked each
>group to vote. In the Closing Plenary, 802.16 approved it unanimously
>(with some discussion of appropriate power levels). 802.15 approved
>it only with the deletion of a section on "Elimination of the 30 s
>re-evaluation rule". I learned of the 802.15 change just before the
>SEC meeting. 802.16 members with whom I consulted believed that this
>section was not important to 802.16.
>
>*Unfortunately, 802.11 did not vote on the document at the Closing
>Plenary due to some kind of bureaucratic snafu. Without 802.11, the
>comments could not be approved as a joint Working Group position
>paper.
>
>*The best alternative I could see was to adopt the document as an
>IEEE 802 position statement instead of a Working Group position
>statement. I moved to do so, and Vic seconded. The 802.15 chair
>expressed support, but the 802.11 chair indicated he would abstain
>since he didn't have a voted Working Group position. Without 802.11
>support, the SEC was unwilling to vote approval.
>
>*As a means of solving the problem, we agreed to modify the motion to
>call for a 14-day SEC email ballot. This would give 802.11 time to
>conduct an informal membership poll. The agreement was that any WG
>polls would be concluded by July 25, three days before the close of
>the ballot.
>
>*Since we have time, I'd like to invite you to read the document
>under consideration:
> http://ieee802.org/16/docs/01/80216-01_38.pdf
>I welcome your comments. Since 802.16 has already approved the
>document, I don't feel I can now vote against it on technical
>grounds. However, I can pass along editorial comments; given the
>rush, I imagine that the editorial level is far from perfect.
>
>*If all goes well, the SEC will approve a new version with only
>editorial improvements. It's possible that 802.11 will come back with
>recommended changes that make the result less acceptable to us. I
>don't think that will happen; after all, the work was carefully
>hammered out by an ad hoc committee in which 802.11 was well
>represented.
>
>Feel free to send me any comments by July 25.
>
>Regards,
>
>Roger
>
>
>>+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> >SEC OFFICIAL EMAIL BALLOT 802.0/15JULY2001
>>Issue date: 15Jul2001Closing Date: 28Jul2001
>>Moved By: Roger Marks
>>Second By: Vic Hayes
>>Move: to submit document RR-01-012 as Comments to FNPRM 99-231. Objects
>>between square brackets are subject to change to reflect the reality.
>>
>>Document RR-01-012 r0 contains the items between square brackets, worked
>out
>>according to the actions taken in the WGs and the SEC. It also has taken
>the
>>effect of the dot15 amendment into consideration. Revision marks can be
>made
>>visible.This is the version that will be submitted by Vic Hayes and I (note
>>both Vic and I will send the document together - I will add my
>coordinates).
>>
>>The attached zip file contains document 11-01-391 r7. This is the version
>>according to the motion to amend made in dot 15
>>
>>Wireless working group Chairs are expected to poll their groups on these
>>comments within 10 days.
>>
>> <<SEC-blt.zip>>
>>---------------
>>Vic Hayes
>>Agere Systems Nederland B.V., formerly Lucent Technologies
>>Zadelstede 1-10
>>3431 JZ Nieuwegein, the Netherlands
>>Phone: +31 30 609 7528 (Time Zone UTC + 2)
>>FAX: +31 30 609 7498
>>e-mail: vichayes@agere.com
>>http://www.orinocowireless.com/