+++ IEEE 802 BALLOT: Approve $4K Funding for FCC to attend IEEE 802 meeting
UPDATE: I forgot to edit closing date for ballot. I have edited this below.
Closing date is Tuesday, 20Feb, as I need to get an invitation out to the
FCC (with or without travel) ASAP.
Please VOTE ASAP, so I possibly can close ballot early. Votes and comments
received to date below:
Howard Frazier - Do Not Approve
Bob Grow - Do Not Approve
Paul Nikolich -
Buzz Rigsbee -
Vic Hayes - Approve
Tony Jeffree - Do Not Approve
Geoff Thompson - Do Not Approve
Bob Love - Do Not Approve
Stuart Kerry - Approve
Bob Heile -
Roger Marks -
Jim Carlo - Chair
From Bob Love:
I vote No with the following conditions for changing my vote to a yes. If
companies that support the FCC coming to the 802 meeting will pay the IEEE
802 funds to cover the travel, then the IEEE 802 should sponsor those
attendees. Bob Grow, I don't know if this proposal is opening a whole new
can of worms. Your comments on it would be appreciated.
From Vic Hayes:
I do highly support this motion. My vote is "AFFIRM".
I have sympathy with the comments made so far that this looks like a tax.
However, I have learned that this is the only way to get the FCC staff to
pay visits to any place in the world. I can not change those rules before
the March meeting.
I am looking into the detailed rules from the Government. It seems to be
impossible to take up the bill as a company or a group of companies. I have
asked a conversation with the FCC General Counsel to find out the details.
So far I understood they have to get the payment from the host.
The subject may seem arbitrary for people not involved in the regulations.
But let me tell you that we are in an extremely important phase of the rules
relevant to our devices. We have the opportunity to get first hand
information from the FCC and we can get detailed background information
relevant to actions we have to take.
I beg for your solidarity to the whole community you are in and trust that
you will vote (change your vote to) affirmation.
From Geoff Thompson:
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.
From Bob Grow:
I have trouble accepting the value proposition on this. Where is the value
in a "getting to know you" visit with no other objective? Does the FCC
question our legitimacy as a standards developing organization, and thus
need to be educated/convinced about something?
I thought a number of the procedural changes we have initiated were
specifically to adapt our proceedures to the requirement of regulatory
bodies like the FCC. Is there something specific we are trying to lobby
them to change?
I find a plenary meeting as a poor vehicle for selling our "collective
vision" on wireless. Though my negative attitude on this may be conditioned
because except for co-existence, I haven't seen a collective vision from our
three wireless working groups. I would need to be convinced that the
collective vision is more than a chimera before voting to financially
support marketing it.
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
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.
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
188.8.131.52.1. 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
I found Peter Murray willing to take the leadership.