Yes, I'll look at them in the morning.
BR,
Mike
Sent from my Windows 8.1 Phone
From: Kennedy, Rich
Sent: 3/20/2017 19:03
To: STDS-802-SEC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [802SEC] Request for EC ballots
Dear EC Members:
I did not include an end date for these motions as the normal 10-day ballot will enable timely submission. However, as the ITU-R Technical Liaison needs time to process them, I am hoping it does not take the full 10 days.
Mike:
Could you please pre-process these, assuming they will be approved. If we have to make any changes, I will notify you immediately.
Thanks.
Rich Kennedy
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
(737) 202-7014
From: Adrian Stephens [mailto:adrian.p.stephens@ieee.org]
Sent: Monday, March 20, 2017 4:50 PM
To: Kennedy, Rich <rich.kennedy@hpe.com>
Subject: Fwd: Re: [802SEC] Request for EC ballots
Rich, If these are time sensitive, you *do* need to announce the possibility of an early close, which
means you can close the vote as soon as the matter is decided (i.e. any additional votes cannot affect
the outcome). Because you are potentially ignoring votes, it has to follow the procedure and be
announced.
Sincerely,
Adrian Stephens
IEEE 802.11 Working Group Chair
mailto: adrian.p.stephens@ieee.org
Phone: +1 (971) 203-2032
Mobile: +1 (210) 268-6451 (when in USA)
Mobile: +44 7342178905 (when in the UK)
Skype: adrian_stephens
-------- Forwarded Message --------
|
Subject: |
Re: [802SEC] Request for EC ballots |
|
Date: |
Mon, 20 Mar 2017 21:43:56 +0000 |
|
From: |
Paul Nikolich <paul.nikolich@ATT.NET> |
|
Reply-To: |
Paul Nikolich <paul.nikolich@ATT.NET> |
|
To: |
Rich,
Given that you and Adrian have moved/seconded the below motions, I now delegate the conduct of the EC email ballot to you.
As Pat has requested, please make sure to use the format for the subject line of EC email ballots to make them easier to identify. The subject should be "+++ ECM +++" followed by the topic. Furthermore, in the email notice, please state you will be using the early close provision on the ballot. (Use the 12 December 2016 ballot we conducted on the RAC reps as an example, attached below for reference*, feel free to call me if you have any questions or need help).
Regards,
--Paul
*start of example EC ballot ____________________________________________________________________
Subject: [802SEC] +++ ECM (early close) +++confirmation of Roger Marks and Geoff Thompson as 802's RAC representatives
Dear EC Members,
My intention is to appoint Roger Marks (primary) and Geoff Thompson (secondary) to serve the 3 year terms on the IEEE Standards Assocaition Registration Authority Committee beginning 01 January 2017. This motion requests your confirmation of their appointments.
Regards,
--Paul
Motion
======
The EC confirms the 802 LMSC Sponsor chair's appointment of Roger Marks (as primary representative) and Geoff Thompson (as secondary representative) to serve 3 year terms on the IEEE Standards Assocaition Registration Authority Committee beginning 01 January
2017.
Move: David Law
Second: Pat Thaler
Start of ballot: 12 December 2016
Close of ballot: 23 December 2016, 11:59PM AOE
Early close: As required in subclause 4.1.2 'Voting rules' of the IEEE 802 LAN/MAN Standards Committee (LMSC) Operations Manual, this is notice that, to ensure the release is provided in a timely manner, this ballot may close early once sufficient responses
are received to clearly decide a matter. Sufficient responses to clearly decide this matter will be based on the required majority for a motion under subclause 7.1.1 'Actions requiring approval by a majority vote' item (h), 'Other motions brought to the floor
by members (when deemed in order by the Sponsor Chair)' of the IEEE 802 LAN/MAN Standards Committee (LMSC) Policies and Procedures.
end of example____________________________________________________________________________________________++
On Mon, Mar 20, 2017 at 12:10 PM, Kennedy, Rich <rich.kennedy@hpe.com> 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.
Thank you.
Rich Kennedy
---------- This email is sent from the 802 Executive Committee email reflector. This list is maintained by Listserv.