Re: +++ IEEE 802 BALLOT: Approve $4K Funding for FCC to attend IEEE 802 meeting
I do not approve this motion.
The reason is that I am concerned that if we fund travel expenses for the
FCC, then other regulatory bodies will justifiably expect us to fund their
travel expenses. This kind of funding is outside our charter.
Now on the other hand, I agree that it will be beneficial for our wireless
groups to be actively engaged with the FCC and other regulatory bodies. Is
there any other way to encourage them to join our meetings without us
having to fund their travel expenses. Alternatively, if the wireless
groups collectively approve funding regulatory body representatives travel
expenses, perhaps the wireless groups can set up a fund seperate from the
802 treasury exclusively for this purpose (I'd like to get Bob Grow's input
on the viability of this suggestion.)
At 10:11 AM 2/14/01 -0600, Jim Carlo wrote:
>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.