Re: [STDS-802-16] [802SEC] +++EC Email Ballot+++Urgent motion to approve 802.18 doc+++
[My previous note gave an invalid ballot closing date. The formal
announcement includes the wrong date, but I'm sure that it will be
corrected to show that the closing date is Friday 26 November. -Roger]
At today's EC meeting, a motion to approve an 802.18 FCC filing was
deferred to an EC email ballot, closing next Friday 26 November. The
deferral was mainly due to the fact that the document had not been
made available to the EC in advance of the motion.
The details are below. The original announcement, including a link to
the document under review, is at:
http://ieee802.org/secmail/msg05898.html
If you have comments or suggestions regarding how I might vote in
this ballot, please let me know. Feel free to copy the 802.16
reflector.
Roger
>Dear EC members,
>
>As agreed at the closing EC meeting, this is a 7 day email ballot to
>make a determination on the below motion to approve the attached
>document 18-04-0056-00-00 (TV Band NPRM Comments) as an 802 Document.
>
>Moved: Carl Stevenson
>Second: Jerry Upton
>
>The ballot opens Friday 19 September 2004 7pm edt and closes the sooner of
>Friday 26 September 2004 7pm edt or 24hours after all EC member have cast a
>vote (a vote consists of an explicit APPROVE, DISAPPROVE or ABSTAIN).
>
>Regards,
>
>--Paul Nikolich
>>Motion:
>>To immediately and urgently conduct a 5 day EC electronic ballot to
>>approve the attached document 18-04-0056-00-00 (TV Band NPRM
>>Comments) as an 802 Document, authorizing Carl Stevenson and
>>Michael Lynch to make necessary non-substantive editorial cleanups
>>and formatting changes, and to file the document with the FCC on
>>behalf of IEEE 802 in a timely fashion. (NOTE: the filing deadline
>>is Nov. 30, 2004 and additionally, we need time to do the editorial
>>cleanups and final Formatting for filing.)
>>
>>Moved: Carl R. Stevenson
>>Seconded: Jerry Upton
>>
>>Information for the EC:
>>
>>The attached document was approved *unanimously* by 802.18 with
>>broad representation by voting members of 802.18 from both 802 as
>>well as the licensed incumbent services which future 802 wireless
>>standards would, by FCC rule and the ITU Radio Regulations, be
>>required to protect from harmful interference as a condition for
>>access to the spectrum in question.
>>
>>There are currently *NO* 802 wireless standards operating in the
>>band in question (the TV broadcast bands), so the recommendations
>>in this document would impose NO additional constraints on existing
>>802 wireless standards.
>>
>>Any future 802 wireless standards desiring to operate in the band in question
>>*will* be *required* by the FCC to afford the incumbent licensed
>>services protection from harmful interference.
>>
>>(The standard to be developed by 802.22, under the scope of its
>>PAR, is specifically intended to operate in the TV broadcast bands,
>>using cognitive radio techniques to protect the incumbent licensed
>>services from harmful interference.)
>>
>>This document was reviewed by an ad hoc group from 802.11 (none of
>>the other Wireless WG Chairs responded to an invitation for review).
>>
>>Any future 802 wireless standard proposing to use the TV bands
>>under the rules
>>proposed by the FCC would, by definition, be required to operate on
>>a strictly
>>non-interfering basis to the incumbent licensed services.
>>
>>Additionally, the attached document is a delicately crafted, yet
>>fair, compromise, based on UNPRECEDENTED cooperation between the
>>"traditional" 802 community and licensed incumbents, some of whom
>>have gained voting membership, and others who have met the
>>attendance requirements at this session and will gain voting
>>membership at the March plenary.
>>
>>These folks came to OUR table to work cooperatively with us in an
>>effort to avoid conflict over the FCC's proposal to allow
>>unlicensed devices to operate *in spectrum for which they hold
>>licenses and have legal rights to protection from harmful
>>interference*.
>>
>>After months of cooperative work, NOT filing the comments that were
>>mutually Agreed between the RR-TAG and these incumbents will
>>severely damage the cooperative working relationship that has been
>>forged between the incumbents and "traditional 802 participants"
>>and will almost certainly result in their withdrawing from their
>>attempts to work cooperatively with us and make our prospects of
>>gaining access to the spectrum.
>>
>>Finally, since IEEE 802.18 requested, and was granted, an extension
>>of time in the comment period, which the FCC granted - something
>>that they normally don't do - on the basis that we had all of the
>>incumbents at the table working cooperatively with us to bring a
>>broad industry consensus position to the FCC, it will virtually
>>certainly *trash* 802's reputation with the FCC if we do not
>>deliver this document by the Nov. 30 filing deadline established by
>>the extension of time that was granted at our request - a
>>relationship that we have worked hard to cultivate and has been
>>very productive.
>>
>>Regards,
>>Carl R. Stevenson (outgoing Chair, IEEE 802.18 RR-TAG)
>>Michael Lynch, Interim Chair, IEEE 802.18 RR-TAG