RE: Govt Policy on Stds & IEEE 802 BALLOT: $4K Funding for FCC to attend
This looks like a situation where it is appropriate for 802 to invite
sponsor corporations (those supporting individual member participation)
and/or institutional members to volunteer financial support. If no
corporation is willing to come to the fore with such support then the value
of FCC (or other regulatory agency) participation is truly suspect.
Further, if regulatory agency participation is essential to the standard and
no corporation will support that participation then the value of the
standard to the market place is suspect.
My personal opinion is that it is appropriate for 802 to spend members' $s
on a marketing effort like an initial visit from a regulatory agency such as
the FCC, but not to support on-going participation.
From: Geoff Thompson [mailto:email@example.com]
Sent: Wednesday, February 14, 2001 2:23 PM
Subject: RE: Govt Policy on Stds & IEEE 802 BALLOT: $4K Funding for
FCC to attend
<< File: 1d198b.jpg >> Pat-
I agree that there is wiggle room but...
It doesn't say anything about taking participation money
It says almost everything possible (given that they aren't
specifically addressing our issue) that they should at least pay there own
way. Note that "c. What forms of support may my agency provide?" even
provides for them giving us grants.
My first message on the subject indicated my reluctance to give a US
national agency special status.
I think we are in violent agreement here.
At 11:39 AM 2/14/01 -0700, firstname.lastname@example.org wrote:
>To: "Thompson, Geoff [SC5:321:EXCH]" <email@example.com>,
>Subject: RE: Govt Policy on Stds & IEEE 802 BALLOT: $4K Funding for FCC to
>Date: Wed, 14 Feb 2001 11:39:16 -0700
>The actual sentence on participation is: "Agencies must consult with
>voluntary consensus standards bodies, both domestic and international, and
>must participate with such bodies in the development of voluntary consensus
>standards when consultation and participation is in the public interest and
>is compatible with their missions, authorities, priorities, and budget
>That "must" leaves a lot of wiggle room including when participation is
>"compatible with their ... budget resources." It comes down to agencies
>participate if they find it convenient.
>I think a critical point in this debate is the one Roger Marks raised. We
>have striven for years to be accepted as a source of international
>standards. It isn't right for us to extend support for FCC attendence
>we are willing to do the same for the regulatory bodies of Canada, EU,
>From: Geoff Thompson [mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org]
>Sent: Wednesday, February 14, 2001 9:22 AM
>Subject: Re: Govt Policy on Stds & IEEE 802 BALLOT: $4K Funding for FCC to
>Please read carefully the OMB Circular that Jim has distributed before you
>vote on the motion regarding the $4K allocation to pay for FCC attendance.
>My read of it brings forth (in my opinion) the following points:
> 1) It does not apply to ITU, therefore we should not necessarily
>follow FCC precedent for dealing with T1 which is the US TAG for ITU (a
>treaty based standards organization).
> 2) It applies to both using standards based products AND to
>regulations which align to standards.
> 3) Agencies MUST participate in relevant standards activities.
> 4) The cost of participation is a normal budget item for the
>Just my opinion, but I believe that the circular indicates that it is
>unnecessary and inappropriate for us to pay.