Re: [802SEC] continuing concern on 802.20 PAR extension request
The group did review the text for editorial changes. Three minor grammar and
wording changes were made in section 5. They were approved and I will send a
red line along with original for the motion again.
I will point again that the January motion was clear on the Chair filling in
the form and sending it forward without another vote.
I hope this clears up your concerns. I am not sure why this is becoming a big
issue on approving a PAR extension that the group approved by 86.4% and for a
group that is making progressing and has just finished an initial Letter
In a message dated 3/9/2006 1:56:22 AM Central Standard Time,
Thanks for this information.
I can understand a WG authorizing its Chair to draft PAR text for
30-day advance submittal to the EC. I cannot understand, however, why
a WG would not take the time during the Plenary to vote on the text
Unless you can show me that the 802.21 Working Group approved the
explicit form that you are asking the EC to approve, I expect to be
voting No on this motion.
At 10:13 PM -0500 06/03/08, Jerry1upton@aol.com wrote:
>The Motion for the PAR Extension was approved by a Technical Vote.
>The Motion instructed the Chair to forward a completed form. The
>mover of the Motion was Mark Klerer who will also agree with the
>intent of the motion
>The Motion is below.
>I did review the text this week and made some minor editorial
>changes with Working Group.
>The Following Motion was approved the 802.20 Working Group at the
>January Interim with Quorum in attendance (66 of 79 Voters)
>The 802.20 Working Group approves the request for a two year
>extension of the current PAR. The chair will forward the completed
>PAR Extension Form to the 802 Executive Committee for approval. If
>approved, the request will be sent to NesCom for its approval. Two
>years is the customarily granted extension; however a one year
>extension shall also be acceptable if that is deemed appropriate by
>the 802 EC and NesCom.
>Vote on the motion: 51 Yes, 8 No, 1 Abstain. Motion passes with 86.4
>In a message dated 3/7/2006 5:09:06 PM Central Standard Time,
>As I mentioned to you earlier, I think it is always important that a
>PAR form be approved by the WG, as a technical decision.
>It is my understanding that your PAR Extension Form was created after
>the WG's interim session. Therefore, I think it would be prudent to
>have the specific form approved by the WG at this Plenary Session
>before it is reviewed by the EC on Friday.
>>Per Bob's request, I have posted the PAR Extension Request at:
>>The form has been updated per comments from Jodi Haasz.
>>In a message dated 2/5/2006 10:01:06 AM Central Standard Time, Jerry1upton
>>It is not posted. My apology for not knowing the customary approach for an
>>I will post the PAR Extension Form early next week and send a note to the EC
>>reflector. I am waiting for some additional comments from Jodi and
>>then I will
>>post a revised version.
>>In a message dated 2/5/2006 7:34:07 AM Central Standard Time,
>>It is customary to supply a URL for the PAR to decrease bandwidth in
>>announcement to our WGs. Is it posted on the 802.20 site?
>>From: Jerry1upton@AOL.COM [mailto:Jerry1upton@AOL.COM]
>>Sent: Wednesday, February 01, 2006 3:38 PM
>>Subject: [802SEC] March EC Agenda Item
>>Please add this PAR Extension request to the EC agenda for the March
>>Attached is my Motion requesting approval and the completed PAR
>>Form provide by SA.
>>Please send me any comments or questions.
>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.