RE: [802SEC] Corrected Ballot Results: +++ SEC EMAIL BALLOT +++ Release of 802 funds for Get802 program
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Howard Frazier [mailto:email@example.com]
> Sent: Thursday, April 18, 2002 2:28 AM
> To: firstname.lastname@example.org
> Cc: 'IEEE802'
> Subject: Re: [802SEC] Corrected Ballot Results: +++ SEC EMAIL
> BALLOT +++
> Release of 802 funds for Get802 program
> I hate to be a nuisance, but I suggest that we all take a
> deep breath and realize that we are talking about an
> expenditure of ~$200,000, which ain't chump change.
> I thank Paul for restating the tally, and I prefer this
> outcome to that which was previously announced, but may
> I respectfully submit that the correct action is to defer
> this decision until we have had more time to collect facts,
> negotiate, and debate.
> This is a very important program, and it involves a whole
> lot of work, and a whole lot of money. I want to see it
> succeed. I hope that my earlier message was not
> misinterpreted by the staff personnel who are members of
> this reflector. I am not trying to tank the Get802 program.
> I do believe that now is not the time to commit our funds.
Howard, et al,
I agree completely with what you state above ... I don't think
that anyone who voted against releasing funds wants to "tank the
Get802 program." In fast, my view, and my understanding of the
views of others, is that we want the program to continue.
The issues as I understand them are "In what form and for what term?"
If the terms of the program are changed dramatically from what
was originally negotiated, it may not be in our members' best
interests (or consistent with their wishes) to continue to assess
the fairly substantial assessment they've been paying.
As members of the SEC, I believe that we have a fiduciary responsibility
to our members in this matter, and that we should defer final decisions
(and payment of the escrowed funds) until we have a better view of, and
much more commitment on, if and how the program will go forward and for
how long at a minimum.