Thread Links Date Links
Thread Prev Thread Next Thread Index Date Prev Date Next Date Index

Re: [802SEC] Potential EC Motion



Steve,

I wholeheartedly disagree with your position. Let me restate why, in summary.

The 19 November 2004 EC vote to insert the coexistence requirement 
into the P&P did NOT have sufficient support to lead to a P&P change.

During that 19 November 2004 meeting, a ruling was made that the 
motion had passed. Bob O'Hara argues strongly that the motion did not 
pass, based on the text that existed in the printed P&P at that time. 
I agree with Bob.

Some people might argue that there is room to disagree with Bob's 
interpretation because of a possible ambiguity in the _printed_ rules 
that existed at the time. However, THOSE PRINTED RULES WERE ERRONEOUS 
AND ARE INAPPLICABLE. The true P&P language applicable to any P&P 
change decision of 19 November 2004 was defined by the authorized 
vote of 14 March 2003. According to those true P&P, the voting 
requirement in effect on 19 November 2004 was "the affirmative vote 
of at least two thirds of all Executive Committee members with voting 
rights." Under the P&P that existed at the time, the P&P change was, 
unambiguously, not approved.

Roger



At 03:11 PM -0800 06/03/18, Bob O'Hara (boohara) wrote:
>Steve,
>
>I still have to disagree with you that the motion passed in November
>2004.  Even if the wording was to count only those EC members who voted,
>the tally ("Result: 8/2/5") shows that 15 EC members voted.  Two thirds
>of those 15 voters, or 10 voters, would need to vote in favor of the
>motion for it to pass.  Consequently, the motion failed, without regard
>to what was recorded in the minutes or the ruling by the chair.
>
>I believe we need Paul to participate in this thread and to say that the
>motion actually failed.  The result should be that the text currently in
>the P&P should be immediately removed.  A new P&P change process would
>need to be started, in order to include the text in some future update
>of the P&P.
>
>  -Bob
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: ***** IEEE 802 Executive Committee List *****
>[mailto:STDS-802-SEC@ieee.org] On Behalf Of Shellhammer, Steve
>Sent: Saturday, March 18, 2006 2:39 PM
>To: STDS-802-SEC@listserv.ieee.org
>Subject: Re: [802SEC] Potential EC Motion
>
>Hi Bill,
>
>	Actually the motion passed as was recorded in the minutes.  We
>had a discussion of the rules at the time and the interpretation was, as
>is stated in the rules at that time, the motion required 2/3 of the EC
>members who voted.
>
>	By the way, the minutes of that meeting were approved over a
>year ago at the March 2005 meeting.
>
>	Now that the rules have been modified any new motion would
>require 2/3 of all EC members.
>
>Regards,
>Steve
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: ***** IEEE 802 Executive Committee List *****
>[mailto:STDS-802-SEC@ieee.org] On Behalf Of Bill Quackenbush
>Sent: Friday, March 17, 2006 9:48 PM
>To: STDS-802-SEC@listserv.ieee.org
>Subject: Re: [802SEC] Potential EC Motion
>
>Roger, et al,
>
>Having been present at the 3/14/03 EC meeting and being the one that
>requested the instruction "to change the text 'all voting members of the
>Executive Committee' to 'all Executive Committee members with voting
>rights' in
>clauses 3.6.2 and 3.6.5" be included the motion, I believe that Roger's
>reconstruction of the events is correct.
>
>I requested the instruction be included to eliminate the potential
>ambiguity of the phrase 'all voting members of the Executive Committee'
>that occurred 4 times in sections 3.6.2 and 3.6.5 of the text that Mat
>presented for approval.  The subsequent editing of the P&P text to
>incorporate the approved changes was incomplete resulting in the
>ambiguous phrase 'two thirds of all voting Executive Committee members
>with voting rights' appearing in the second paragraph of section 3.6.5
>as Roger has observed.
>
>So it appears to me that the question is what is the status of
>unapproved text in the published version of the P&P.  Does the
>unapproved text acquire standing and take precedence over the approved
>text because the unapproved text was published or does only approved
>text have standing?
>
>Best regards,
>
>Bill Q.
>
>"Roger B. Marks" wrote:
>>
>>  I've done a little research as to how the 2/3 rule has evolved. Kind
>>  of long, but interesting.
>>
>>  The "old" rule (valid up through at least the JULY 12, 2002 revision)
>said:
>>
>>  "LMSC approval shall require the affirmative vote of at least two
>>  thirds of all voting members of the Executive Committee."
>>
>>  At the SEC meeting of 14 March 2003, we were presented with a ballot
>>  resolution that would change the text to:
>>
>>  "LMSC approval of the revised text of the proposed Policies and
>>  Procedures change shall require the affirmative vote of at least two
>>  thirds of all voting members of the Executive Committee."
>>
>>  However, the EC appears to have been concerned about possible
>>  ambiguity here, because it approved the rule change with a
>>  modification:
>>
>>  "Motion: to approve the rule change for SEC Electronic Ballots with
>>  instruction to change the text 'all voting members of the Executive
>>  Committee' to 'all Executive Committee members with voting rights' in
>>  clauses 3.6.2 and 3.6.5.  Moved: Mat Sherman/Buzz Rigsbee  Passes:
>>  10/0/2". [The text under discussion was in 3.6.5]
>>
>>  So, by my reckoning, the rule became:
>>
>>  "LMSC approval of the revised text of the proposed Policies and
>  > Procedures change shall require the affirmative vote of at least two
>  > thirds of all Executive Committee members with voting rights."
>>
>>  There is a problem, however. The P&P issued as effective MARCH 14,
>>  2003 says the following:
>>
>>  "LMSC approval of the revised text of the proposed Policies and
>>  Procedures change shall require the affirmative vote of at least two
>>  thirds of all voting Executive Committee members with voting rights."
>>
>>  As you can see, whoever edited the rules change forgot to delete the
>>  first instance of the word "voting". Therefore, the ambiguity that
>>  the SEC sought to remove remained in the P&P. The erroneous text
>>  remained through 2004.
>>
>>  The situation cleared again in the MARCH 21, 2005 revision:
>>  "LMSC approval of the revised text of the proposed P&P revision shall
>>  require the affirmative vote of at least two-thirds of all EC members
>>  with voting rights (regardless of whether they are  present)."
>>
>>  which is where we stand today.
>>
>>  Fascinating history.
>>
>>  To me, the application of the CA issue is clear. To Bob O'Hara, our
>>  resident parliamentarian, the denominator [using the language in the
>>  P&P at the time] includes abstains. There seems to be some
>>  disagreement about this interpretation. However, there is only one
>>  possible interpretation of the rule that was actually in force -
>>  although not stated corrected in the P&P. Under the rule that was in
>>  force, the coexistence text was NOT approved.
>>
>>  Roger
>>
>>  At 04:01 PM -0800 06/03/16, Bob O'Hara (boohara) wrote:
>>  >Pat,
>>  >
>>  >The wording of the proportion required for approval is the same in
>both
>>  >the November 2004 and current P&P.  I believe that the quote from the
>>  >P&P "two thirds of all voting EC members
>>  >with voting rights" is pretty clearly stating that the denominator is
>to
>>  >be the total number of votes (Y + N + abstain).  If this were not the
>>  >requirement, the statement would be that a "2/3 majority" is required
>>  >for approval.
>>  >
>>  >So, I stand by my earlier interpretation that the motion actually
>failed
>>  >in November.
>>  >
>>  >
>>  >  -Bob
>>  >
>>  >-----Original Message-----
>>  >From: STDS-802-SEC@ieee.org [mailto:STDS-802-SEC@ieee.org] On Behalf
>Of
>>  >Pat Thaler
>>  >Sent: Thursday, March 16, 2006 3:56 PM
>>  >To: STDS-802-SEC@listserv.ieee.org
>>  >Subject: Re: [802SEC] Potential EC Motion
>>  >
>>  >Steve,
>>  >
>>  >Thanks, I would read that old text "two thirds of all voting EC
>members
>>  >with voting rights" to mean yes votes are at least 2/3 of yes plus no
>>  >votes. In Robert's Rules, an abstain normally isn't a vote, we
>usually
>>  >use y/(y+n) and we are usually very careful to state when we are
>>  >requiring a vote of y over total voting membership.
>>  >
>>  >Pat
>>  >
>>  >-----Original Message-----
>>  >From: Shellhammer, Steve [mailto:sshellha@qualcomm.com]
>  > >Sent: Thursday, March 16, 2006 3:31 PM
>>  >To: Pat Thaler; ***** IEEE 802 Executive Committee List *****;
>>  >STDS-802-SEC@listserv.ieee.org
>>  >Subject: RE: [802SEC] Potential EC Motion
>>  >
>>  >Pat,
>>  >
>>  >       I was actually quoting from the November 2004 rules, which I
>>  >happened to have on my PC.  It is attached.  I think I had that one
>>  >around since I was participating in making rules changes back then.
>Boy
>>  >the good old days. :)
>>  >
>>  >       Looks like the current rules have been clarified.
>>  >
>>  >Regards,
>>  >Steve
>>  >
>>  >-----Original Message-----
>>  >From: Pat Thaler [mailto:pthaler@broadcom.com]
>>  >Sent: Thursday, March 16, 2006 3:17 PM
>>  >To: ***** IEEE 802 Executive Committee List *****; Shellhammer,
>Steve;
>>  >STDS-802-SEC@listserv.ieee.org
>>  >Subject: RE: [802SEC] Potential EC Motion
>>  >
>>  >Steve,
>>  >
>>  >I don't see the text you quote in our current P&P. Are you quoting
>from
>>  >the version in effect at the time of the rules change. (I recall that
>we
>>  >have had a rules change on the rules change section so this change
>may
>>  >not have been done under the current P&P.)
>>  >
>>  >In the current P&P, I see two meeting votes on a rules change:
>>  >One to send it out for ballot requiring "the affirmative vote of at
>>  >least two-thirds of Committee members with voting rights who vote to
>>  >approve or disapprove". That is clear even if wordy - pass criteria
>is
>>  >Y/(Y+N).
>>  >
>>  >One for final approval of the change which requires "the affirmative
>>  >vote of at least two-thirds of all EC members with voting rights
>>  >(regardless of whether they are present)." That is clearly Y/(total
>>  >number of EC members with voting rights) even if they don't vote or
>even
>>  >aren't present.
>>  >
>>  >Pat
>>  >
>>  >-----Original Message-----
>>  >From: ***** IEEE 802 Executive Committee List *****
>>  >[mailto:STDS-802-SEC@ieee.org] On Behalf Of Shellhammer, Steve
>>  >Sent: Thursday, March 16, 2006 2:41 PM
>>  >To: STDS-802-SEC@listserv.ieee.org
>>  >Subject: Re: [802SEC] Potential EC Motion
>>  >
>>  >It sounds like the idea of the motion is not the correct procedure so
>I
>>  >will not bring such a motion to the EC.  Guess we will stick with
>Paul's
>>  >interpretation.
>>  >
>>  >In terms of the original motion to make the rules change the 802 P&P
>>  >states
>>  >
>>  >"LMSC approval of the revised text of the proposed Policies and
>>  >Procedures change shall require the affirmative vote of at least two
>>  >thirds of all voting Executive Committee members with voting rights."
>>  >
>>  >The motion passed based on having at least two thirds affirmative of
>>  >"voting EC members with voting rights."  I assume that "voting EC
>>  >members" means those EC members that voted.  By the way, who writes
>this
>>  >stuff?  :)
>>  >
>>  >       I think adding a definitions section to the rules and
>clarifying
>>  >these ambiguous rules is worth doing.
>>  >
>>  >Steve
>>  >
>>  >
>>  >-----Original Message-----
>>  >From: ***** IEEE 802 Executive Committee List *****
>>  >[mailto:STDS-802-SEC@ieee.org] On Behalf Of Bob O'Hara (boohara)
>>  >Sent: Thursday, March 16, 2006 2:27 PM
>>  >To: STDS-802-SEC@listserv.ieee.org
>>  >Subject: Re: [802SEC] Potential EC Motion
>>  >
>>  >From a parliamentary procedure point of view, I would have to agree
>with
>>  >Roger that having a motion have the same effect as our Policies and
>>  >Procedures is not the correct thing to do.  If the point of the new
>>  >procedure was supposed to be that all work, including that already
>>  >established before the adoption of the new procedure, was to be
>affected
>>  >by the new procedure, the new procedure should have stated that.
>Since
>>  >it didn't include such language and specifically describes the use of
>>  >the five criteria document as part of the procedure, it clearly
>exempts
>>  >those projects that existed prior to the adoption of the new
>procedure
>>  >from the needing to implement that procedure.
>>  >
>>  >Regarding Roger's question as to whether the motion establishing this
>>  >procedure actually passed, I can't be certain.  According to the
>current
>>  >P&P, 2/3 of all EC members with voting rights must approve a P&P
>change.
>>  >By this measure, the motion did not pass, achieving only 8/15
>approval.
>>  >However, I don't know if the language of this clause (7.1.5.4) has
>>  >changed since the November 2004 session.
>>  >
>>  >  -Bob
>>  >
>>  >-----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 1:25 PM
>>  >To: STDS-802-SEC@listserv.ieee.org
>>  >Subject: 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.

----------
This email is sent from the 802 Executive Committee email reflector.  This list is maintained by Listserv.