| Thread Links | Date Links | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Thread Prev | Thread Next | Thread Index | Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index |
Apurva, With respect to the way 802.18 has operated, I would remind everyone that the RR-TAG has been in the middle of a variety of controversial issues over the course of the existence of the group. In the case of the IMT Advanced initiative in ITU-R, the 802 Chair specifically asked the RR-TAG to mediate the process, which we did to the best of our abilities. In creating documents for submission to a spectrum regulatory group, everyone’s views are listened to, no view is rejected out of hand, but at the end of the day, the people at the meeting need to move forward with something that is agreeable. Giving workgroup representatives a kind of veto power over parts of a controversial document, after the discussion is over, or at least has started to repeat itself, is a way of moving forward that minimizes the acrimony going forward, and, generally allows a document to move forward without further objections at the EC level. It does depend on WG participation, and WG chairs that have strong opinions about the document need to attend the closing plenary, and teleconference meetings, to have their voices heard. As everyone knows, IEEE 802 wireless group members have other avenues which may be used to submit their comments on spectrum regulatory issues, including their individual companies, the various alliances (Wi-Fi, Zigbee, WiMax, WhiteSpace Alliance, etc.), or a personal submission of their own. Each of these avenues can support more industry or issue specific recommendations than can be expected from IEEE 802 as a whole, given our diversity of interests. John From: Michael Lynch [mailto:MJLynch@mjlallc.com] Apurva, From: apurva mody <apurva_mody@yahoo.com> Mike, John, I Approve the motion ... Also it would be nice to figure out if there is some alternate way to build consensus in 802.18 rather than striking things down just because one Voting Member disagrees with it as pointed out by Bruce below. From: Bruce Kraemer <bkraemer@MARVELL.COM> Mike, I vote disapprove. During the course of December the document content changed significantly. It no longer reflects the interests of 802.11. A few Comments on the changes and change process: 1. Paragraph 5 (stricken)– why remove? 802 created 802.11af specifically for TVWS. 2. Paragraph 6 (stricken)– good paragraph supporting unlicensed. Peter who has cellular agenda objected to any strong unlicensed statement and it was consequently removed. 3. New paragraph 7- paragraph only talks about rural but we support unlicensed spectrum in urban areas too – in fact without it we have no business case- this sentence is not what our message should be which is we need guaranteed at least 3 channels in urban areas for WiFi in TVWS to have a business case. 4. Paragraphs 9/10/11 (stricken in green) – we can at least keep 11. 5. Paragraphs 13/14 (stricken in green/yellow) – we can at least keep 14. 6. Paragraph 17 – this should be kept in but was removed “IEEE 802 supports allowing part 15 whitespace devices in the guard bands and the duplex gaps. “ Regards, Bruce From: Michael Lynch [mailto:MJLynch@mjlallc.com] Bruce, From: Bruce Kraemer <bkraemer@marvell.com> Mike, I would support an extension – could we round it out to Friday January 11th? Bruce From: ***** IEEE 802 Executive Committee List ***** [mailto:STDS-802-SEC@ieee.org] On Behalf Of Michael Lynch Pat and EC, I agree with Pat and had considered a different date. Will it be acceptable to extend the ballot to January 9th? Please advise if there are any objections. Thus far there have been two votes, both to approve, from myself and Steve Shellhammer. Best regards, Mike From: ***** IEEE 802 Executive Committee List ***** [mailto:STDS-802-SEC@ieee.org] On Behalf Of Pat Thaler Dear Michael, I’d like to request that this vote be extended since it was started on December 24 and many people took the time between that and January 1 off. Regards, Pat From: ***** IEEE 802 Executive Committee List ***** [mailto:STDS-802-SEC@ieee.org] On Behalf Of Michael Lynch Dear EC, At the November IEEE 802 Plenary in San Antonio work was begun in 802.18 on an input to the FCC regarding FCC TV Band Incentive Auction NPRM and, in particular, on the license exempt use of a portion of that spectrum. It was not possible to finish that document in San Antonio so 802.18 held two conference calls and completed the document. The final result was that the comments were approved by a vote of 7 yes, 0 no and 1 abstain. I have asked Paul to allow me to conduct a ten day EC email ballot to approve submitting the comments (Doc. 18-12-0109-08) to the FCC. Paul’s response to my request is: “I will authorize a 10 day EC email ballot, to be conducted by Mike Lynch, for the following motion.” Motion: “To approve, under OM Subclause 8.2, document 18-12-0109-08 subject to the early close provision of OM Subclause 4.1.2.2." Moved Mike Lynch, Seconded Apurva Mody Link to the document is: Comments are to be submitted to the FCC by January 25th, 2013 and reply comments by March 12th, 2013. The ballot will start December 26th.. The ballot will close January 4th, unless enough ballots have been received to meet the early closure provision of OM Subclause 4.1.2.2. Regards and Happy Holidays to all, Mike +1.972.814.4901 ---------- 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. ---------- 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. ---------- This email is sent from the 802 Executive Committee email reflector. This list is maintained by Listserv. |