RE: [802SEC] Report rules change procedure for PARs
Thanks for your response, Roger.
I have explained my thoughts in context below. I trust that you can now
trust the proposal.
From: Roger B. Marks
To: Hayes, Vic (Vic)
Cc: 'firstname.lastname@example.org '; Stevenson, Carl R (Carl)
Sent: 3/14/2002 2:37 PM
Subject: RE: [802SEC] Report rules change procedure for PARs
Here is some detail.
Regarding "For a wireless project to be authorized the PAR shall
address the level of coexistence with other IEEE 802 wireless
standards and projects and with other users of the spectrum":
(1) My impression was that Bob Heile was clear that he didn't want
this clause added without a clear definition of coexistence.
VH--> We discussed the item at some length at saw that the policy
statement Bob needed was not the subject of this rules
change, bu of a coexistence group, over some time.
I try to accommodate Bob's concern by stating "levels of
(2) Several comments asked for the deletion of the word "wireless".
VH--> The deletion they wanted was in the regulatory conformance.
The coexistnece was really a wireless medium issue.
Tony showed it clearly:
d) Regulatory conformity;
e) For wireless projects, spectrum sharing feasibility
I am satisfied with the Regulatory conformance part.
I think the project management aspect introduces an additional level
of SEC oversight that could lead to a lot of headaches. I forgot that
Geoff had suggested this sort of thing; now I think I remember him
mentioning it as a solution to the "six-months max without a PAR"
problem. So I guess I can live with it (especially if we assign the
administration of the issue to the LMSC Vice Chair).
At 6:53 PM +0000 02/03/14, Hayes, Vic (Vic) wrote:
>The Project Management item came from the comment resolution meeting we
>on Sunday. It was Geoff, with his experience in the matter at all
>brought the object in.
>Have you got more detailed concerns about the response to the ballot?
>From: Roger B. Marks
>To: Hayes, Vic (Vic)
>Cc: email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org
>Sent: 3/14/2002 1:12 PM
>Subject: Re: [802SEC] Report rules change procedure for PARs
>I don't think this resolution is responsive to the comments received
>in the ballot. Also, the section on "Conditional approval" seems
>(unless I am missing something) to be unrelated to any comment. I
>also think it is problematic. Therefore, my inclination is to
>continue to Disapprove.
>At 10:56 PM +0000 02/03/13, Hayes, Vic (Vic) wrote:
>>Following the comment resolution meeting on Sunday, I worked with my
>>to follow-up on your advices.
>>All additions to the existing rules are given in red font.
>>If you have any suggestion for improvement, please contact me in
> >Specialbefore 11 AM. That way we have the opportunity to tray and