RE: Regarding Bob's Question ... RE: [802SEC] [TIME-SENSITIVE MO TION] to APPROVE FCC FILINGS
As I said to the SEC reflector last week, 802.16 approved the letters
in an authorized Working Group meeting on 20 May.
Though we were short (by one person) of a formal quorum at our
Session #19 last week, we were authorized to act by a Working Group
Letter Ballot that approved the following motion:
"To authorize the IEEE 802.16 Working Group to carry out Working
Group business at Session #19, with or without a formal quorum, and
in particular to authorize the Working Group Closing Plenary, on 24
May 2002, to act, with a 75% majority of those members present, to
adopt drafts and initiate Working Group Letter Ballots on those
drafts under PARs 802.16a and 802.16c."
At 8:56 AM -0700 02/05/28, Bob O'Hara wrote:
>While I understand the procedure does not require WG approval, your
>statement supporting approval of the motion by the SEC does, however, state
>that .11, .15, and .16 all "approved" the documents. I am simply asking for
>clarification from you, and the working group chairs, that the "approvals"
>by the WGs are entirely within the LMSC and WG operating rules. Having been
>a member of 802.11 for many years, I know very well how loosely that WG
>adheres to its own rules and the vilification to which any member asking
>that the rules be observed is subjected.
>So, I ask that each of the wireless WG chairs state here that their WGs
>either approved the referenced documents at an 802 plenary meeting or that
>their WGs had either a quorum present as demonstrated by their attendance
>records or have conducted the necessary procedures to gain the approval of
>the entire WG.
>From: Carl R. Stevenson [mailto:email@example.com]
>Sent: Friday, May 24, 2002 2:33 PM
>To: Bob O'Hara; firstname.lastname@example.org
>Subject: Regarding Bob's Question ... RE: [802SEC] [TIME-SENSITIVE MOTION]
>to APPROVE FCC FILINGS
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Bob O'Hara [mailto:email@example.com]
>> Sent: Thursday, May 23, 2002 7:44 PM
>> To: 802sec (firstname.lastname@example.org)
>> Cc: 'Stevenson, Carl R (Carl)'
>> Subject: RE: [802SEC] [TIME-SENSITIVE MOTION] to APPROVE FCC FILINGS
>> You state in the motion that the list of working groups have
>> approved the documents. Were these approvals at the March
>> plenary meetings of the working groups? If this approval was
>> obtained at an interim meeting without a quorum present, have
>> the working groups conducted the required letter ballots of the
>> entire working group membership(s) to truly "approve" the
>I was in Sydney. Both .11 and .15 were conducting
>business to the end of their closing plenaries and
>certainly appeared to *me* to have quorums (though in
>the interest of strict accuracy, I must admit that
>*I* did not, at the time of my motions, call for a
>I have spoken to Bob Heile and he assured me that
>.15 had a quorum.
>While I have been unable thusfar to reach Stuart or
>Roger regarding your inquiry, I have inquired of .11
>and .16 for specific clarification on your question.
>HOWEVER, in the meantime, while we await responses
>from .11 and .16, if you look at Procedure 4 of the
>LMSC rules, specifically the section entitled
>"IEEE 802 position statements," you will see that there
>is actually NO requirement for ANY sort of WG approval
>of the documents in order for the SEC to approve them
>as IEEE 802 positions. The ONLY specified requirement
>for release (filing with the FCC in this case) is a 2/3
>approval of the SEC.
>Thus, with all due respect to your concern for the details
>of the LSMC rules, the lack of a specific requirement
>for WG approval in the LMSC rules would render your inquiry
>regarding WG quorums at the most recent interims moot as far
>as my pending motion goes.
>If you wish, please consider the "RECOGNIZING" portion of my
>motion as being merely informative (as a courtesy to the SEC),
>rather than conveying information REQUIRED by the LMSC rules.
>Again, due to the importance of the issues surrounding
>the proposed FCC filings, I urge the members of the SEC
>to promptly vote to approve the motion.
>Carl R. Stevenson