|Thread Links||Date Links|
|Thread Prev||Thread Next||Thread Index||Date Prev||Date Next||Date Index|
I vote disapprove.
I object to the additional of the below sentence in the revision of the proposed letter. The sentence implies the support of the 802.20 Working Group for this letter. The members of 802.20 had no opportunity to review this letter at the Plenary. I ask that this sentence be removed as an editorial revision. There were at least two requests from 802.20 members as observers at the EC meeting including the request for adding this sentence and a request to remove the last paragraph of the letter. However, without a review by all the 802.20 members I cannot support this addition.
"Additionally, the IEEE 802.20 Working Group is developing mobile broadband wireless standards that, upon their completion, may be submitted to Working Party 8A. "
I also object to sending this letter that puts forward a recommendation for a standard that is not finished and formally approved. Additionally, the specification is not freely available to all the member states of the ITU yet. Therefore, the letter should not be sent until the above steps are complete.
The below phrase in the letter implies there was a cross Working Group review of the content included in this letter. I saw no announcement of such a review at the Plenary. It states it was prepared by regulatory experts. Given Mike Lynch's second of the motion, it implies that 802.18 approved this letter. I do not believe 802.18 voted an approval of this letter. However, I will defer to MIke for an answer on this point.
"The content herein was prepared by a group of technical and regulatory experts in IEEE 802......"
Finally, the letter does again clearly point out the overlap that the revised 802.16e PAR has created with the 802.20 Working Group scope and propose.
Given the above points and my statements at the EC meeting, I vote disapprove.
In a message dated 3/19/2005 11:07:50 AM Central Standard Time, paul.nikolich@ATT.NET writes:
Dear EC Members,