SEC BALLOT: Missing email?
Mr. Lidinsky wrote:
>(1) We are voting on IEEE802 responding to the FCC NPRM with a specific
>document. We are *NOT* voting on the document itself. The responses
>from some of the members of the SEC seem confused on this point. I
>remind the members of the SEC that we, by our own rules, are chartered
>primarily to deal with procedural issues. (See Section 3 of our
>operating rules.) I was there when the rules were first adopted. (One
>of the founding fathers you might say.) I can personally testify that
>it was the express intention that the SEC not be a technical court.
Since I haven't seen any SEC ballot response that raises technical issues, I'm afraid I may be missing some of the reflector email.