[802SEC] Looking for a Second to the Motion to approve the attached EC position statement regarding the SC6 review of 8802-1
Dear EC members,
Is there a second to the below motion to approved the revised SC6 input? I want to kick off the debate and decision on this as soon as possible because it must close within 7 days to meet the SC6 deadline for input.
Regards,
--Paul
----- Original Message -----
From: Tony Jeffree
To: Andrew Myles (amyles)
Cc: Sherman, Matthew J. (US SSA) ; Bob O'Hara (boohara) ; gthompso@nortel.com ; Mike Takefman (tak) ; pthaler@broadcom.com ; paul.nikolich@att.net ; shellhammer@ieee.org ; stuart.kerry@philips.com ; vivek.g.gupta@INTEL.COM ; bob.grow@ieee.org ; bheile@ieee.org ; everett.o.rigsbee@boeing.com ; carl.stevenson@ieee.org ; jerry1upton@aol.com ; jhawkins@nortel.com ; mjlynch@nortel.com ; r.b.marks@ieee.org
Sent: Tuesday, September 19, 2006 2:49 AM
Subject: RE: [802SEC] [802SEC] +++EC Email ballot (closes no later than 17SEP2006)+++ Motion to approve the attached EC position statement regarding the SC6 review of 8802-1
So moved.
Regards,
Tony
At 05:48 19/09/2006, Andrew Myles \(amyles\) wrote:
"urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:o = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:w = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:st1 = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags">
G'day Tony, Carl and Mike,
Assuming you are happy (or at least not too unhappy) with the draft, would it be possible for you to move and second a motion to approve it as IEEE 802's input into the SC6 process?
Given the time constraints (drop dead date is in about 7 days) it would then be great if the EC could vote "early and often" or at least early ;)
Andrew
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Sherman, Matthew J. (US SSA) [mailto:matthew.sherman@baesystems.com]
Sent: Tuesday, 19 September 2006 9:14 AM
To: Andrew Myles (amyles); Tony Jeffree
Cc: Bob O'Hara (boohara); gthompso@nortel.com; Mike Takefman (tak); pthaler@broadcom.com; paul.nikolich@att.net; shellhammer@ieee.org; stuart.kerry@philips.com; vivek.g.gupta@INTEL.COM; bob.grow@ieee.org; bheile@ieee.org; everett.o.rigsbee@boeing.com; carl.stevenson@ieee.org; jerry1upton@aol.com; jhawkins@nortel.com; mjlynch@nortel.com; r.b.marks@ieee.org
Subject: RE: [802SEC] [802SEC] +++EC Email ballot (closes no later than 17SEP2006)+++ Motion to approve the attached EC position statement regarding the SC6 review of 8802-1
Carl / Mike,
Can you formally state for the record that you are satisfied with these changes and now support this document?
Thanks,
Mat
Matthew Sherman, Ph.D.
Senior Member Technical Staff
BAE Systems Network Enabled Solutions (NES)
Office: +1 973.633.6344
email: matthew.sherman@baesystems.com
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Andrew Myles (amyles) [mailto:amyles@cisco.com]
Sent: Monday, September 18, 2006 7:01 PM
To: Tony Jeffree
Cc: Bob O'Hara (boohara); gthompso@nortel.com; Mike Takefman (tak); pthaler@broadcom.com; paul.nikolich@att.net; shellhammer@ieee.org; stuart.kerry@philips.com; vivek.g.gupta@INTEL.COM; bob.grow@ieee.org; bheile@ieee.org; everett.o.rigsbee@boeing.com; carl.stevenson@ieee.org; jerry1upton@aol.com; jhawkins@nortel.com; Sherman, Matthew J. (US SSA); mjlynch@nortel.com; r.b.marks@ieee.org
Subject: RE: [802SEC] [802SEC] +++EC Email ballot (closes no later than 17SEP2006)+++ Motion to approve the attached EC position statement regarding the SC6 review of 8802-1
G'day Tony,
I have now incorporated all your comments (I hope). The only slight tweak is I modified some words in the right hand column of pp9 when combining your suggestions with Carl's suggestions. The additions to your suggestions are marked below in red italics. I hope you like the additions.
A potential benefit for 802 of a cooperative relationship with ISO/IEC is that it provides 802 WG's with the option of establishing "international standard" status for an 802.x standard through ISO/IEC using a simple documented cooperation process
EC members, I believe we are now pretty close to consensus on the 802's input to SC6 on this topic. Does anyone believe this is not the case? If not, then it might almost be time to try another EC ballot, remembering that we have a drop dead date of 26 Sept (actually 27 Sept but we probably need a day to make sure we have time to get our input to Robin Tasker)?
Andrew
PS Stuart Kerry has asked me to present this material to 802.11 tomorrow. I will emphasise that the material is only a proposal and does not necessarily represent the view of the EC. Any objections?
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Tony Jeffree [mailto:tony@jeffree.co.uk]
Sent: Monday, 18 September 2006 11:15 PM
To: Andrew Myles (amyles)
Cc: Andrew Myles (amyles); Bob O'Hara (boohara); gthompso@nortel.com; Mike Takefman (tak); pthaler@broadcom.com; paul.nikolich@att.net; shellhammer@ieee.org; stuart.kerry@philips.com; vivek.g.gupta@INTEL.COM; bob.grow@ieee.org; bheile@ieee.org; everett.o.rigsbee@boeing.com; carl.stevenson@ieee.org; jerry1upton@aol.com; jhawkins@nortel.com; matthew.sherman@baesystems.com; mjlynch@nortel.com; r.b.marks@ieee.org
Subject: RE: [802SEC] [802SEC] +++EC Email ballot (closes no later than 17SEP2006)+++ Motion to approve the attached EC position statement regarding the SC6 review of 8802-1
Andrew -
I like the additional changes in this version; however, I believe my most recent set of comments still apply.
Regards,
Tony
At 13:19 18/09/2006, Andrew Myles \(amyles\) wrote:
G'day all,
Hold the presses! I worked with Carl Stevenson and Mike Lynch this evening on some refined text for pp 9. We came up with the attached. Carl and Mike want to think about it overnight but it looks pretty good from my perspective.
I will incorporate Tony's suggestions first thing in the morning but I am being thrown out of the conventions centre right now
Andrew
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Andrew Myles (amyles)
Sent: Monday, 18 September 2006 5:37 PM
To: Tony Jeffree
Cc: Bob O'Hara (boohara); gthompso@nortel.com; Mike Takefman (tak); pthaler@broadcom.com; paul.nikolich@att.net; shellhammer@ieee.org; stuart.kerry@philips.com; tony@jeffree.co.uk; vivek.g.gupta@INTEL.COM; bob.grow@ieee.org; bheile@ieee.org; everett.o.rigsbee@boeing.com; carl.stevenson@ieee.org; jerry1upton@aol.com; jhawkins@nortel.com; matthew.sherman@baesystems.com; mjlynch@nortel.com; r.b.marks@ieee.org
Subject: RE: [802SEC] [802SEC] +++EC Email ballot (closes no later than 17SEP2006)+++ Motion to approve the attached EC position statement regarding the SC6 review of 8802-1
G'day Tony,
Overall, I suspect we are actually in agreement on most of the general concepts. We probably just need to refine the wording. I hope so anyway, given the time available. ;)
I would appreciate it if this e-mail was not copied to the public EC reflector, and indeed was kept to this group of people. It contains comments that are potentially upsetting to fans of ISO/IEC.
BTW I will answer your other e-mail on this topic separately.
TJ> For me, the biggest problem with that slide is the "802 wants.." wording used in the main bullet of both columns, which sets entirely the wrong emphasis on the relationship in my view. That is certainly not something that 802.1 wants; indeed our current position is that we see no value in the ISO relationship as far as the 802.1 standards are concerned, which is why we no longer launder them through SC6.
The intent is not to force any 802 WG to submit documents to ISO/IEC. Rather it is to allow individual 802 WGs to do so if they so choose, and to do so in a way that gives 802 total control over the standards, ie copyright, changes etc. However, we can certainly refine the words to make this clearer. I note you have made some good wording suggestions below. I will address the details of the proposed refinements below.
TJ> On the "better standards..." front (heading and left hand column), I believe that this concept is entirely spurious; the place where the expertise in LAN, MAN, WLAN, PAN,...(X)AN standardisation resides, worldwide, is 802; the idea that by exposing our work to a wider group of people that have arguably less (maybe no) expertise in the subject matter we will improve their quality is politically enticing, but is, I'm afraid, practically laughable. Back in the '80s/'90s, when 802.1 used to submit the Bridging standards to ISO, and when SC6 was far more active than it is today, our experience was that the process did not improve the quality of our standards at all, but it did involve us in considerable additional time and effort to make sure that the process didn't actually reduce the quality of our standards. And of course, we've just experienced exactly that effect, but in a much more extreme form, with the recent debacle over 802.11. So I would like that whole concept to be removed from the document altogether.
I totally agree with you that allowing the NB's to submit comments is unlikely to assist the quality of 802.x standards in any substantial way. However, I included the left hand panel on slide 9 as a way of pandering to the views of some ISO/IEC NBs, ie it is, as you pointed out, a political statement that might help us in any negotiation process. The text was also included as a way of deemphasising/diluting the right hand panel related to "international standardisation", which also has political implications. In other words a carefully balanced compromise of words, which like all compromises makes everyone (hopefully equally) unhappy.
The text was included with the full expectation that we are unlikely to ever receive substantial or very many comments from ISO/IEC NBs. Certainly we have not received many comments from NBs in the past, even during the ISO/IEC Fast Track ballots. That said, we actually received some good comments (editorial and technical errors) from the Chinese NB during the Fast Track ballot on 802.11i, which were subsequently incorporated into 802.11ma.
It is also worthwhile noting that we are only (re)formalising the mechanism previously agreed in 8802-1 for NBs to submit comments to LBs and SBs, but we are not giving them a formal vote, and thus little power. Of course, any individual can vote in a LB by qualifying for membership of a particular 802.x WG and any individual can vote in a SB by joining IEEE-SA or paying the appropriate ballot fee. In one sense we are not really giving the ISO/IEC NBs anything but some ISO/IEC NBs might think we are giving them something of value and so might be more likely to agree with our other suggestions.
Could you agree to keeping the left hand panel on slide 9 with some editorial changes that de-emphasise the ISO/IEC relationship? Have a look at the attached file for the editorial changes. I have copied them below:
802 wants its standards to reflect the needs of a wide variety of stakeholders
a.. 802 has developed very successful PAN, LAN, MAN & RAN standards in the past, particularly the 802.3 and 802.11 series of standards
b.. This success is partially due to an open standards development process that encourages & enables participation by a wide variety of stakeholders
c.. A benefit for 802 of any relationship with ISO/IEC is a formal process to access the views & expertise of NBs, which represent another valuable set of stakeholders
Note that the text does not say whether or not the NB "expertise" is valuable to you, me or anyone else. Of course, we all have our own opinions.
TJ> I can see that, in some markets, there might be an advantage in applying the ISO label, particularly if there are competing standards in the field. However, that just isn't the case with most of what we do; the only serious competing non-802 standard in the LAN (...etc.) area that I can remember was FDDI, and that is long gone. Yes, it could happen again, so the ISO track could be useful to us if it does, but in reality, WTO rules or no, if we're the only game in town, it doesn't matter very much that we only have an IEEE standard label. I haven't heard any of the participants in 802.1 complaining that they can't sell switches because the 802.1 standards don't have the ISO seal of approval.
The threat is "national standards" and the manipulation of WTO rules, not competing standards from IEEE peers or look-alikes.
Imagine the following scenario.
a.. 802.1 is an IEEE standard - the current situation
b.. IEEE is not yet widely recognised as an "international" SDO - probably the current situation, although hopefully not so in the future
c.. <Country X> decides to create a "national standard" on an 802.1 related topic - maybe it references (not copies, thus avoiding copyright issues) an 802.1 standard but specifies some important technical changes
d.. <Country X> specifies that all products in <Country X> must follow the "national standard" - the WTO rules allow this in the absence of an "international standard"
e.. 802.1 equipment without the special <Country X> specified changes is banned in <Country X>
Of course one could argue that this would never happen to 802.1. Maybe true or maybe not, but the reality is that it happened to 802.11 in the WAPI case. It could also happen to 802.1, although whether the 802.1 WG wants to mitigate the risk is an issue for the 802.1 WG.
In the WAPI case industry used a variety of mechanisms to solve the problem, including political pressure on the Chinese from USG luminaries such as Colin Powell. However, the main basis of the pressure was that there was an internationally recognised standard 8802-11 (the ISO/IEC version) and that an internationally recognised standard 8802-11i was on its way. Without the ISO/IEC "stamp" we would have lost the battle. We also would have lost the battle if 8802-11i had failed in the Fast Track ballot, which is why we worked so hard to make sure this did not occur. A loss would have meant giving up or resorting to the courts. The WTO arbitration processes are too slow relative to the speed of our industry, with no guarantee of success. We could have used IPR as an lever but that would have required the IPR owners to take on the Chinese in Chinese courts, which is not only slow but also bad for business and a very uncertain area of law.
My personal belief is that the goal of any agreement with ISO/IEC is that it gives IEEE 802 another set of tools (which individual WGs can choose to use or not) to resist the threats from national standards and corresponding manipulation of WTO rules. Unfortunately it is not "politic" to say this. The only cost of this process is that we need to spend time sending documents to ISO.
TJ> So I think the wording of slide 9 needs to be considerably watered down, replacing the entire slide along these lines:
802 overall goal for its relationship with ISO/IEC is clarification of "international" standardisation status where that is important in particular situations/markets
An 8802-x version of an 802.x standard can, in some cases, enable wider acceptance
a.. The WTO and other organisations give special status to "international standards", particularly in trade
b.. The definition of an "international standard" is not always clear
c.. It is even possible that IEEE 802.x standards may qualify as "international standards", but this is untested
d.. However, an ISO/IEC standard is well accepted as an international standard
e.. In some cases, IEEE 802 standards may compete with other, equivalent standards developed in other standards fora
f.. Therefore, a benefit for IEEE 802 of any relationship with ISO/IEC is a mechanism to gain a clear "international standard" status for IEEE 802.x standards where the needs of particular working groups, or particular market conditions, dictate.
I played around with the words to de-emphasis the ISO/IEC relationship aspect. I think it says roughly what you were intending. The major difference is that I removed your fifth dot point because that the fact IEEE compete with "national standards" rather than other standards fora. What do you think of the following? I have coloured the words that might address your concerns
802 wants its standards to have the widest possible international acceptance
a.. The WTO & similar organisations give special status to "international standards" that assists global acceptance
b.. The definition of an "international standard" is not always clear
c.. It is even possible that 802.x standards may already qualify as "international standards"
d.. However, an ISO/IEC standard is more acceptable to some stakeholders as an "international standard"
e.. A benefit for 802 of any relationship with ISO/IEC is that it provides 802 WG's with the option of establishing "international standard" status for a 802.x standard using a simple, documented cooperation process
Andrew
BTW I am at the IEEE 802.11 meeting in Melbourne this week. If any of the EC members would like to provide feedback or suggestions personally please yell. I am seeing Carl at 6pm today (Monday) in the 802.22 room. I am also available on +61 418 656587, although please only call after 6am and before 11pm (Melbourne time) Note that we need to come to consensus very soon to allow us to send our input to SC6 by the 26 Sept deadline.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Tony Jeffree [mailto:tony@jeffree.co.uk]
Sent: Monday, 11 September 2006 8:49 PM
To: Andrew Myles (amyles)
Subject: RE: [802SEC] [802SEC] +++EC Email ballot (closes no later than 17SEP2006)+++ Motion to approve the attached EC position statement regarding the SC6 review of 8802-1
G'day Andrew -
For me, the biggest problem with that slide is the "802 wants.." wording used in the main bullet of both columns, which sets entirely the wrong emphasis on the relationship in my view. That is certainly not something that 802.1 wants; indeed our current position is that we see no value in the ISO relationship as far as the 802.1 standards are concerned, which is why we no longer launder them through SC6.
On the "better standards..." front (heading and left hand column), I believe that this concept is entirely spurious; the place where the expertise in LAN, MAN, WLAN, PAN,...(X)AN standardisation resides, worldwide, is 802; the idea that by exposing our work to a wider group of people that have arguably less (maybe no) expertise in the subject matter we will improve their quality is politically enticing, but is, I'm afraid, practically laughable. Back in the '80s/'90s, when 802.1 used to submit the Bridging standards to ISO, and when SC6 was far more active than it is today, our experience was that the process did not improve the quality of our standards at all, but it did involve us in considerable additional time and effort to make sure that the process didn't actually reduce the quality of our standards. And of course, we've just experienced exactly that effect, but in a much more extreme form, with the recent debacle over 802.11. So I would like that whole concept to be removed from the document altogether.
I can see that, in some markets, there might be an advantage in applying the ISO label, particularly if there are competing standards in the field. However, that just isn't the case with most of what we do; the only serious competing non-802 standard in the LAN (...etc.) area that I can remember was FDDI, and that is long gone. Yes, it could happen again, so the ISO track could be useful to us if it does, but in reality, WTO rules or no, if we're the only game in town, it doesn't matter very much that we only have an IEEE standard label. I haven't heard any of the participants in 802.1 complaining that they can't sell switches because the 802.1 standards don't have the ISO seal of approval.
So I think the wording of slide 9 needs to be considerably watered down, replacing the entire slide along these lines:
802 overall goal for its relationship with ISO/IEC is clarification of "international" standardisation status where that is important in particular situations/markets
An 8802-x version of an 802.x standard can, in some cases, enable wider acceptance
* The WTO and other organisations give special status to "international standards", particularly in trade
* The definition of an "international standard" is not always clear
* It is even possible that IEEE 802.x standards may qualify as "international standards", but this is untested
* However, an ISO/IEC standard is well accepted as an international standard
* In some cases, IEEE 802 standards may compete with other, equivalent standards developed in other standards fora
* Therefore, a benefit for IEEE 802 of any relationship with ISO/IEC is a mechanism to gain a clear "international standard" status for IEEE 802.x standards where the needs of particular working groups, or particular market conditions, dictate.
Regards,
Tony
At 10:44 09/09/2006, you wrote:
G'day Tony
It was certainly not the intent to say that all 802.x standards should
be sent through ISO/IEC. Indeed, slide 17 explicitly allows 802 to veto
the ISO/IEC standardisation of any 802.x standard for any reason. Some
802 WG's would presumably effectively veto any ISO/IEC standardisation
by not participating in the 8802-1 process in any way. That said, what
rewording would make the text on slide 9 (right column) more palatable?
Andrew
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-stds-802-sec@ieee.org [mailto:owner-stds-802-sec@ieee.org]
On Behalf Of Tony Jeffree
Sent: Saturday, 9 September 2006 6:48 PM
To: wk3c@WK3C.COM
Cc: STDS-802-SEC@listserv.ieee.org
Subject: Re: [802SEC] [802SEC] +++EC Email ballot (closes no later than
17SEP2006)+++ Motion to approve the attached EC position statement
regarding the SC6 review of 8802-1
I'm changing my vote to "Disapprove" in support of Carl's comments
below. I believe the problem could be fixed either by striking the
offending text or by re-wording it to make it clear that some (but not
not all) 802 WGs consider the ISO label to be desirable in the markets
that they serve.
Regards,
Tony
At 01:55 09/09/2006, Carl R. Stevenson wrote:
>DISAPPROVE - (most strenuously!) (With all due respect to Andrew Miles
>and the effort he's expended.)
>
>In addition to wanting my name spelled correctly in the revisions list
>:-) I have the following problem:
>
>The text on slide 9 - "802 wants an 8802-x version of 802.x standards
>to enable the widest acceptance The WTO and other organisations give
>special status to "international standards", particularly in trade The
>definition of an "international standard" is not always clear It is
>even possible that IEEE 802.x standards may qualify as "international
>standards", but this is untested However, an ISO/IEC standard is well
>accepted as an international standard Therefore, a benefit for 802 of
>any relationship with ISO/IEC is a mechanism to gain certain
>"international standard" status for IEEE 802.x standards"
>
>is, in my opinion as a member of the SA BoG, counter to IEEE-SA goals
>to be postured as a truly international SDO.
>
>Since IEEE has been recognized with Sector Memberships in ITU in the
>same category with ("on equal status with") ISO, I think that the
>entire message that this text sends that we (IEEE-SA) somehow "need"
>ISO to achieve international status for/acceptance of our standars is
>inaccurate and damaging to the goals of IEEE-SA as I understand them.
>
>I would also point out that 802.16 has been meeting with quite a bit of
>success in getting their standards recognized internationally by
>incorporation of references thereto in ITU Recommendations and other
>documents.
>
>Thus, while I have no problem with WGs that might *want* to work
>cooperatively with ISO/IEC, I *do* have a problem with the way the
>offending text implies that working through ISO/IEC is in *any* way
>*necessary* for IEEE Standards to gain international status and
acceptance.
>
>I urge all of my colleagues on the EC to join me in voting DISAPPROVE
>until this problem has been rectified.
>
>I think the document could (and does) suggest ways to work with ISO/IEC
>*without* the inclusion of the offending text/concepts.
>
>Finally, it is my understanding that "Position Statements" to outside
>entities require higher approval in IEEE than the 802 EC ... That is
>why
>802.18 has "disclaimer boilerplate" in its regulatory filings and is
>careful to avoid the use of the "P-word" ...
>
>Regards,
>Carl R. Stevenson
>President and Chief Technology Officer
>WK3C Wireless LLC
>Where wireless is a passion, as well as a profession (SM)
>----------------------------
>Wireless Standards, Regulatory & Design Consulting Services
>4991 Shimerville Road
>Emmaus, PA 18049-4955 USA
>cellular: +1 610 841 6180 (normally best means of contact)
>voip: +1 610 624 3755 ("SkypeIn" when on-line - particularly
outside of
>US)
>phone: +1 610 965 8799 (backup - least reliable, slowest response)
>fax: +1 484 214 0204 (e-Fax to my e-mail account)
>e-mail: wk3c@wk3c.com
>web: http://www.wk3c.com
>
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: ***** IEEE 802 Executive Committee List *****
> > [mailto:STDS-802-SEC@ieee.org] On Behalf Of Paul Nikolich
> > Sent: Friday, September 08, 2006 4:09 PM
> > To: STDS-802-SEC@listserv.ieee.org
> > Subject: [802SEC] +++EC Email ballot (closes no later than
> > 17SEP2006)+++ Motion to approve the attached EC position statement
> > regarding the SC6 review of 8802-1
> >
> > Dear EC Members,
> >
> > Per the below email I sent you last Friday
> > (http://www.ieee802.org/secmail/msg08457.html) , a revised version
> > of the IEEE 802 position statement on the review of the 8802-1 and
> > related documents by SC6 is attached for EC approval.
> >
> > Motion: The 802 LMSC EC resolves to adopt the attached position
> > statement (appropriately edited to remove the "DRAFT" and "Change
> > History" text) Moved-Tony Jeffree Seconded-Mat Sherman
> >
> > Please cast your vote as soon as possible. The ballot closes the
> > earlier of either 17 Sept 2006 or 24 hours after every EC member has
> > cast a vote.
> >
> > Regards,
> >
> > --Paul Nikolich
> >
> >
> >
> > To: STDS-802-SEC@listserv.ieee.org
> > Subject: [802SEC] request for input from 802 EC members regarding
> > 8802-1 review
> > From: Paul Nikolich <paul.nikolich@ATT.NET>
> > Date: Fri, 1 Sep 2006 11:40:57 -0400
> >
> > --------------------------------------------------------------
> > ------------------
> >
> > Dear EC Members,
> >
> > In an e-mail sent to this reflector two weeks ago a process was
> > outlined to develop an IEEE 802 LMSC position on potential revisions
> > to ISO/IEC TR 8802-1:2001, which documents a cooperation process
> > between IEEE 802 LMSC and ISO/IEC JTC1/SC6/WG1.
> >
> > Since that time a small group has contributed to a draft position
> > IEEE 802 LMSC statement for submission to Robin Tasker (editor of
> > 8802-1) by 27 Sept 06. Andrew Myles coordinated the activity and
> > developed the draft position statement in the attached powerpoint
> > document. Contributions were received from Geoff Thompson, Steve
> > Mills, Pat Thaler, David Law, Andrew Myles, Gary Robinson, Bob
> > Pritchard and Paul Nikolich. The draft position does not necessarily
> > represent the views of all contributors.
> >
> > The original plan was to have a teleconference next week to discuss
> > the position statement. However, the lack of response from the EC
> > (and, presumably, their WG/TAG membership) suggests this is probably
> > not a useful exercise. The lack of response is not surprising
> > because, although the the relationship with ISO/IEC is important, it
> > is "esoteric standards work", orthogonal to the interests of most
> > Working Group members.
> >
> > A slightly modified process to approve this document will now be
> > followed:
> >
> > a.. The draft position statement is attached to this e-mail for
> > comments by the 802 EC. Comments should be sent to the
> > 802 EC reflector and cc'ed to Andrew Myles (andrew.myles@cisco.com).
> > The closing date for comments is 5pm ET on Thursday, 7 Sept 06.
> > b.. Andrew Myles will generate an updated version of the draft
> > position statement based on these comments by 7am ET on Friday, 8
> > Sept 06.
> > c.. The 8 Sept 06 version will be sent out for EC approval via an
> > 802 EC e-mail ballot on 8 Sept 06. The ballot will close on 17 Sept
> > 06.
> > d.. If the EC ballot fails, Andrew Myles will make further changes
> > early in the week during the IEEE 802.11 WG interim session in
> > Melbourne and a second 802 EC e-mail ballot will be issued with a
> > closing date of 26 Sept 06.
> > e.. I want to avoid a second EC e-mail ballot--hence the
> > 1-7 Sept comment period--please, please, please provide your input
> > prior to 5 pm ET 7 Sept 06.
> > f.. Assuming a position statement is approved, it will be sent to
> > Robin Tasker on 26 Sept 06.
> > Andrew Myles is available to discuss the draft position statement at
> > any time after 5am (3pm ET) any day next week on
> > +61 2 84461010 (W) or +61 418
> > 656587 (M).
> >
> > ----------
> > 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.
----------
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.