Re: [802SEC] Potential EC Motion
Steve,
I would be opposed to this motion on coexistence assurance, for the
following reasons:
(1) The proposed motion seeks to, in effect, impose a new rule on
WGs. Our rules are defined not by motion of the EC but by the P&P. If
someone wants to impose a new rule, they ought to be proposing a P&P
change, not a motion. If an approved motion has the status of a rule,
then our process is broken.
(2) The proposed motion (if approved and enforced) would be adding a
completely new rule, not interpreting an existing rule. The existing
P&P says:
*21 [Procedure for Coexistence Assurance] "If indicated in the five
criteria, the wireless working group shall produce a coexistence
assurance (CA) document in the process of preparing for working group
letter ballot and Sponsor ballot."
The projects subject to this motion do NOT indicate in their Five
Criteria that a CA document will be produced. The language of
Procedure 21 is clear. It does NOT apply to those projects.
(3) The proposed motion is out of character with the existing rule.
The existing P&P, as part of the Five Criteria language, says:
*17.5.4.1 "A working group proposing a wireless project is required
to demonstrate coexistence through the preparation of a Coexistence
Assurance (CA) document unless it is not applicable... If the Working
Group elects not to create a CA document, it will explain to the EC
the reason the CA document is not applicable."
In other words, for future projects, the existing P&P acknowledges
that a CA document may or may not be applicable to wireless projects,
leaving the WG with the opportunity to argue a position. The proposed
motion would have the EC jump to its own conclusion that a CA
document is applicable to all of the pre-existing projects.
On a related issue: I would like to better understand how the CA got
into the P&P in the first place. The minutes of the EC meeting of
Friday 19 November 19 2004 state, under item 10.06: "Motion: to amend
the 802 P&P by applying document 19-04/0032r3 to the 802 P&P. Moved:
Shellhammer/Sherman Result: 8/2/5 Passes." However, I question
whether a vote of 8/2/5 was sufficient to pass the motion. In my
understanding, a change of P&P requires approval of 2/3 of the EC.
Perhaps someone can explain the grounds for ruling that the motion
was carried.
Regards,
Roger
At 11:47 AM -0800 06/03/16, Shellhammer, Steve wrote:
>IEEE 802 EC,
>
>
>
> I have modified the motion that Ajay made at the Friday
>closing plenary, with the intent to see if it is possible to come to an
>agreement on text that would be acceptable to the executive committee.
>I will take comments on this text and if we can agree on the text I will
>run an electronic EC ballot on the resulting text, with Paul's
>permission.
>
>
>
> Here is the text I drafted based on what I received from
>Ajay. Please send me and the rest of the EC your comments.
>
>
>
>CA Motion
>
>Any wireless project intended for unlicensed operation, that could
>potentially cause interference to an 802 wireless standard, and whose
>PAR was approved prior to November 2004 and begins working group letter
>ballot after November 2004 shall produce a coexistence assurance
>document and distribute that CA document with working group letter
>ballot and Sponsor ballot.
>
>
>
>Regards,
>
>Steve
>
>
----------
This email is sent from the 802 Executive Committee email reflector. This list is maintained by Listserv.