Re: +++ IEEE 802 BALLOT: Approve $4K Funding for FCC to attend IEEE 802 meeting
I will not support this for reasons that are somewhere in the Grow/Frazier
The reason sounds sufficiently non-specific that it could just as easily
grow into an every meeting expense and/or several people.
It doesn't sound like the purpose is to give a tutorial but rather that a
tutorial would be a "tack-on". We sometimes waive registration fees for
folks who give tutorial and incidentally attend meetings, not the other way
I am disappointed that T1 pays the FCC to attend their meetings. After all
T1 performs the TAG function for the benefit of the State Department as
well as providing additional delegates to the ITU at no cost for what is
(according to the organizational rules of ITU) a responsibility of the
What special standing does the FCC have before 802? Would we extend the
same courtesy to regulatory staff from other countries, The European Union
It is my opinion that this fund is sufficiently specific to a subset of 802
that if those that are affected think it is necessary then they should vote
on and generate and fund a separate funding mechanism from the general fund.
At 11:40 PM 2/12/01 +0000, Tony Jeffree wrote:
>Date: Mon, 12 Feb 2001 23:40:17 +0000
>From: Tony Jeffree <email@example.com>
>Subject: Re: +++ IEEE 802 BALLOT: Approve $4K Funding for FCC to attend IEEE
> 802 meeting
>I agree with Howard - sounds like unnecessary taxation to me.
>At 12:36 12/02/2001 -0800, you wrote:
>>I am opposed to this motion.
>>1) The last time I checked, the federal government was running a budget
>>2) I do not wish to set a precedent that we will pay government employees'
>>expenses to travel to 802 meetings.
>>3) I would go along with waiving the registration fee, as we do for other
>>Jim Carlo wrote:
>> > ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>> > SEC OFFICIAL EMAIL BALLOT 802.0/20Dec2000
>> > Issue Date: 20Dec2000 Closing Date: 4Jan2000
>> > Moved By: Vic Hayes Seconded By: Stuart Kerry
>> > Move: Authorize invitation to the FCC for March Plenary Meeting (and
>> if not
>> > then in July), paying travel expenses up to $4K.
>> > Notes:
>> > I have had a number of discussions with some of you regarding inviting the
>> > FCC to our IEEE 802 meeting so they can better understand the IEEE 802
>> > process and know us better. Note that the FCC person generally will not
>> > answer any technical or legal question. My hope is the FCC could better
>> > understand us and see our collective vision of where the future is heading
>> > in wireless. I was also going to see if the FCC attendee could give us a
>> > tutorial on Tuesday evening on how the FCC process works.
>> > In T1E1, we invite the FCC but T1 must pay for their travel expenses. This
>> > is the same situation if we invite an FCC member to an IEEE 802 meeting.
>> > Note that an individual or company cannot pay for this, because of a
>> > perceived bias. Therefore, in the invitation to the FCC, I will need to
>> > specify that we cover travel expenses, say up to $4K.
>> > >From Vic Hayes:
>> > At the last meeting, 802.11 passed the following motion:
>> > To request the SEC members to consider by email ballot, paying for travel
>> > and lodging for a representative of the FCC to attend the March
>> meeting, and
>> > if approved, have the chairman of the
>> > 802.11 ad hoc regulatory group request that an FCC representative
>> attend the
>> > March meeting.
>> > 18.104.22.168.1. Vote on the main motion - passes 29:5:2
>> > I just heard that my sponsor wants me to go to the ITU-R Joint
>> > Rapporteursgroup 8A-9B meeting rather than to Hilton Head for the IEEE 802
>> > meetings.
>> > I found Peter Murray willing to take the leadership.