Re: [802SEC] Potential EC Motion
While I am all for coexistence, I have to agree with Roger's arguments and
> -----Original Message-----
> From: ***** IEEE 802 Executive Committee List *****
> [mailto:STDS-802-SEC@ieee.org] On Behalf Of Roger B. Marks
> Sent: Thursday, March 16, 2006 4:25 PM
> To: STDS-802-SEC@listserv.ieee.org
> Subject: Re: [802SEC] Potential EC Motion
> 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
> (3) The proposed motion is out of character with the existing rule.
> The existing P&P, as part of the Five Criteria language, says:
> *220.127.116.11 "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.
> 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
> >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
> > 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.
> This email is sent from the 802 Executive Committee email
> reflector. This list is maintained by Listserv.
This email is sent from the 802 Executive Committee email reflector. This list is maintained by Listserv.