+++ FAIL: IEEE 802 BALLOT: Approve $4K Funding for FCC to attend IEEE 802 meeting
Since all have voted, I am closing this ballot.
1) I have separately requested funding for travel from IEEE-SA Standards
Board, but this has run into the similar issues below (precedent setting,
why US only, etc.). Will continue to pursue this.
2) I think the best course of action now is to invite the FCC person to give
tutorial (which will exempt from the meeting fee), but not pay for travel
Vic, can you send me proforma invitation and I will edit and prepare for
review this weekend.
FAIL: 4-8-0 (Chair did not Vote)
Howard Frazier - Do Not Approve
Bob Grow - Do Not Approve
Paul Nikolich - Do Not Approve
Buzz Rigsbee - Do Not Approve
Vic Hayes - Approve
Tony Jeffree - Do Not Approve
Geoff Thompson - Do Not Approve
Bob Love - Do Not Approve
Stuart Kerry - Approve
Bob Heile - Approve
Roger Marks - Do not Approve
Jim Carlo - Chair
From Buzz Rigsbee:
Jim, I reluctantly vote NO because where I agree with the points about
appropriateness, precedents, and Lack of Focus, I also believe our rules
indicate that our expenditure of 802 meeting fees money should be made only
for items which
provide direct benefits to all 802 members, which I don't believe is the
case here. Surely there must be an alternative !!!
From Paul Nikolich:
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.)
From Bob Heile:
I do not necessarily like this little FCC tradition of travel
reimbursement, but it is the way they operate. I don't like taxes
either. I do like the fact that the FCC is looking to organizations like
802 to recommend better ways of using spectrum rather than just having to
write standards that comply with limited rules. To that end, I think it
would be extremely useful to have interaction time with the FCC on how to
best take advantage of this more open policy making and since they are
there it could make for a good general interest tutorial for 802 as well.
I have been on panels with Knapp and he is a good speaker and is
responsible for many interesting things at the FCC. All the soap boxes
aside, I vote for building a key relationship.
ie I approve of the expenditure of funds for this purpose
From Geoff Thompson:
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 setting
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 agency
Just my opinion, but I believe that the circular indicates that it is
unnecessary and inappropriate for us to pay.
From Roger Marks:
I vote No. I do appreciate the advantage of providing the regulators a
better understanding of IEEE standards and our process, and I'd like them to
see that 802 is paving the way to a fast, inexpensive, and widely-accessible
wireless Internet. I also know that the FCC is on a tight budget. They don't
get to keep the income from the spectrum auctions, just enough to cover the
cost of running them.
On the other hand, I am concerned about 802, as a global organization,
subsidizing the travel of a representative of a single government. 802.16
has had numerous governmental employees in
attendance (for example, 19 sessions attended by staff from Industry Canada
and 8 sessions attended by a participant from the UK's Radiocommunications
Agency). We haven't offered them any financial assistance, and I don't think
we should. We still welcome their participation. For example, our Regulatory
Affairs Committee and I invited FCC participants to attend our session in
the Washington DC area last May and offered fee waivers. [None attended,
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.
Response from Bob Grow:
Are you suggesting that 802 pay the travel expenses and then invoice a TBD
list of companies for a proportional share of the expenses? If so, I expect
that could be done though I am reluctant to add to the financial systems an
invoicing capability, tracking, etc. (The closest thing we have right now
is deadbeat tracking which is not done through the financial system.)
While this would change the value proposition part of my objections, it
doesn't affect other reservations.
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
From Pat Thaler (former 802 Treasurer and 802.3 Chair)
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 must
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 unless
we are willing to do the same for the regulatory bodies of Canada, EU,
From Geoff Thompson:
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.
John Montague (Former Vice Chair):
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 Pat Thaler:
At this point, several people have made suggestions that companies could
provide 802 financial support for funding FCC attendance. This seems
ethically flakey to me and reminds me of current campaign finance scandals
where someone not allowed to contribute such as a foreign company gave money
to someone so they could contribute it.
The US government has very strict rules that don't allow companies to
provide anything of value such travel or meals for government employees. I
doubt that funneling the money through the 802 treasury would change that.
I'm not clear even on why 802 as a whole is exempt from those rules though
perhaps it is because 802 is not a government supplier. But it is pretty
clear that companies X, Y and Z giving 802 money so it can pay travel
expenses for an FCC employee who couldn't receive travel funding directly
from the companies isn't legitimate. I don't even like seeing that suggested
on this reflector.
From Stuart Kerry:
Further to my one line approval of this ballot. I do believe this motion
will fail sadly. I hear the concerns and views, and concur with Bob Heile on
this matter. I would like to make it clear that, as chair of 802.11 I have
the wishes of my membership, and feel that we are not allowing a (poor
staving administration, pun definitely intended) the chance to have industry
and standards making involvement in their already overburdened process.
Don't forget, they have layed the olive branch on the table for us to take
up. As Chair of 802.11 I am seeing more and more concerns being raised on
FCC, and other administrations Regulatory matters and would like to make
progress in our standards making process.
With this, I have said my piece .........
SEC OFFICIAL EMAIL BALLOT 802.0/10Feb2001ec2000
Issue Date: 10Feb2001 Closing Date: 20Feb2001
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
22.214.171.124.1. 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.