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

Re: [802SEC] RE: [802SEC] +++EC Email ballot (closes no later than 25SEP2006)+++ Motion to approve the attached EC SC6 recommendation



I am happy with the wording of V10 and vote APPROVE.

Regards,
Tony

At 06:16 21/09/2006, Carl R. Stevenson wrote:
>Just to be explicit, I vote APPROVE on v10 and ask all other EC members to
>likewise approve the document ASAP due to the deadline.
>
>Carl
>
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Geoff Thompson [mailto:gthompso@nortel.com]
>Sent: Wednesday, September 20, 2006 10:07 PM
>To: Andrew Myles (amyles)
>Cc: Geoff Thompson; wk3c@wk3c.com; STDS-802-SEC@listserv.ieee.org
>Subject: RE: [802SEC] RE: [802SEC] +++EC Email ballot (closes no later than
>25SEP2006)+++ Motion to approve the attached EC SC6 recommendation
>
>Andrew-
>
>Thank you.
>That does it for me.
>
>My recommendation to the EC is to vote APPROVE on V10 as enclosed.
>
>Best regards,
>
>Geoff
>
>At 07:02 PM 9/20/2006 , Andrew Myles \(amyles\) wrote:
> >G'day Geoff
> >
> >Oooops, missed that one
> >
> >Steve, could you live with this version? Please say yes! If not, could
> >I chat with you later today in Melbourne?
> >
> >Other EC members, could you please vote ASAP?
> >
> >Andrew
> >
> >-----Original Message-----
> >From: Geoff Thompson [mailto:gthompso@nortel.com]
> >Sent: Thursday, 21 September 2006 11:43 AM
> >To: Andrew Myles (amyles)
> >Cc: wk3c@wk3c.com; Geoff Thompson; STDS-802-SEC@listserv.ieee.org
> >Subject: RE: [802SEC] RE: [802SEC] +++EC Email ballot (closes no later
> >than 25SEP2006)+++ Motion to approve the attached EC SC6 recommendation
> >
> >Andrew-
> >
> >Thanks for the fast turn-around. Comments as I look through it.
> >
> >Slide 4:        Good change     Approved
> >
> >Slide 7 Not wild about it still, but I can live with it
> >
> >Slide 9 Please complete the change in last bullet
> >                  (i.e. from "status" to "recognition")
> >
> >Slide 11:       Good change     Approved
> >
> >So you are only one word away from my APPROVE vote.
> >
> >Thanks,
> >
> >          Geoff
> >
> >
> >At 06:04 PM 9/20/2006 , Andrew Myles \(amyles\) wrote:
> > >G'day Carl,
> > >
> > >I responded to Geoff's suggestions with a new version (attached).
> > >Geoff
> >
> > >has not yet confirmed it, but I believe his comments have now been
> > >resolved (I hope so anyway). Do you the modifications satisfy you?
> > >
> > >Andrew
> > >
> > >-----Original Message-----
> > >From: owner-stds-802-sec@ieee.org
> > >[mailto:owner-stds-802-sec@ieee.org]
> > >On Behalf Of Carl R. Stevenson
> > >Sent: Thursday, 21 September 2006 8:03 AM
> > >To: 'Geoff Thompson'; STDS-802-SEC@listserv.ieee.org
> > >Subject: [802SEC] RE: [802SEC] +++EC Email ballot (closes no later
> > >than
> >
> > >25SEP2006)+++ Motion to approve the attached EC SC6 recommendation
> > >
> > >Colleagues,
> > >
> > >Sorry ... But upon reviewing Geoff's comments I have to agree with
> > >the points he makes (some of which I hadn't viewed in the same light
> > >until Geoff's comments.
> > >
> > >Therefore, I feel that I have to change my previous approve to
> > >DISAPPROVE.
> > >If Geoff's comments are satisfied I will change my vote back to
> >approve.
> > >
> > >I would have responded to Geoff's comments sooner, but for the time
> > >offset here in Australia.
> > >
> > >Carl
> > >
> > >
> > >-----Original Message-----
> > >From: ***** IEEE 802 Executive Committee List *****
> > >[mailto:STDS-802-SEC@ieee.org] On Behalf Of Geoff Thompson
> > >Sent: Wednesday, September 20, 2006 4:10 PM
> > >To: STDS-802-SEC@listserv.ieee.org
> > >Subject: Re: [802SEC] +++EC Email ballot (closes no later than
> > >25SEP2006)+++ Motion to approve the attached EC SC6 recommendation
> > >
> > >Paul/Colleagues-
> > >
> > >I have to join Carl and recommend that these slides be DISAPPROVED
> > >
> > >Please examine these points carefully. I believe they are worthy of
> > >consideration
> > >
> > >The text, early on (slide 4) says:
> > >          - . 8802-1 should be modified so that international
> > >standardisation can always be achieved ...
> > >
> > >...which (were there an appropriate WTO case and were I supporting
> > >the "other" side) I would take as evidence for presentation to the
> > >judging
> > >body: "Here, the IEEE even admits that they are NOT a lower case
> > >international standard unless they are blessed by ISO/IEC.
> > >
> > >I do not think we want to say that
> > >I do not think that is the case
> > >I think is not an appropriate position for 802 to take wrt the
> > >position
> >
> > >that the IEEE-SA takes for its standards.
> > >
> > >Slide 7 statements open a Pandora's box of issues that might well be
> > >nurturing to a relationship with SC6.
> > >
> > >Slide 9, last bullet
> > >Change:
> > >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.
> > >
> > >To:
> > >A potential benefit for 802 of a cooperative relationship with
> > >ISO/IEC is that it provides 802 WG's with the option of widening
> > >"international
> >
> > >standard" recognition for an 802.x standard through ISO/IEC using a
> > >simple documented cooperation process
> > >
> > >Slide 11:
> > >The title:
> > >"8802-1 should be modified so that international standardisation can
> > >always be achieved ..."
> > >should be changed per my critique of slide 4 above.
> > >
> > >I support slides 12 through 21
> > >
> > >Please carefully consider these items and reconsider your vote
> > >
> > >Sincerely,
> > >
> > >Geoff Thompson
> > >
> > >At 04:23 PM 9/19/2006 , Paul Nikolich wrote:
> > > >Dear EC Members,
> > > >
> > > >A revised version of the IEEE 802 recommendation on the 8802-1 and
> > > >related documents requested by SC6 is attached for EC approval.
> > > >
> > > >Motion: The 802 LMSC EC resolves to adopt the attached SC6
> > > >recommendation version 07 dated 19SEP06 (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 25 Sept 2006 or 24 hours after every EC member
> > > >has cast a
> > >vote.
> > > >
> > > >Regards,
> > > >
> > > >--Paul Nikolich
> > > >----------
> > > >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.
> > >X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5
> > >Content-class: urn:content-classes:message
> > >MIME-Version: 1.0
> > >Content-Type: multipart/mixed;
> > >         boundary="----_=_NextPart_002_01C6DD0C.8A1CF804"
> > >Subject: RE: [802SEC] [802SEC] +++EC Email ballot (closes no later
> > >than
> >
> > >25SEP2006)+++ Motion to approve the attached EC SC6 recommendation
> > >Date: Thu, 21 Sep 2006 07:28:48 +0800
> > >Message-ID:
> > ><70CDE339FEE838489EE9580C31AD5765019E79DD@xmb-hkg-414.apac.cisco.com>
> > >X-MS-Has-Attach: yes
> > >X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
> > >Thread-Topic: [802SEC] [802SEC] +++EC Email ballot (closes no later
> > >than 25SEP2006)+++ Motion to approve the attached EC SC6
> > >recommendation
> > >Thread-Index: Acbc8vrPcRPNsX6kQAaCBqPcaDpxdAADcX2AAAKeO0A=
> > >From: "Andrew Myles \(amyles\)" <amyles@cisco.com>
> > >To: "Andrew Myles \(amyles\)" <amyles@cisco.com>,
> > >         "Geoff Thompson" <gthompso@nortel.com>,
> > >         "Paul Nikolich" <p.nikolich@IEEE.ORG>
> > >Cc: <STDS-802-SEC@listserv.ieee.org>
> > >
> > >G'day all
> > >
> > >After further reflecting on Geoff's comments, I think we can make
> > >some simple changes to satisfy his concerns. Geoff?
> > >
> > >The changes are fully documented on the Change History page of the
> > >attached document but briefly they are:
> > >
> > >* Changed "8802-1 should be modified so that international
> > >standardisation can always be achieved" to "8802-1 should be modified
> > >so that an ISO/IEC standard can always be achieved" on both pp 4 & pp
> >11.
> > >This avoids the issue highlighted by Geoff by not equating
> > >"international standardisation" with the what ISO/IEC do.
> > >
> > >* Changed "establishing" to "widening" exactly as suggested by Geoff
> > >
> > >* Softened language on pp 7 with "Recent attempts to use the
> > >endorsement process defined in 8802-1 for 802.11ma approval failed
> > >after SC6 NBs did not receive Liaisons from 802.11 WG"
> > >
> > >* Removed "Probably because it definitely gives an 802.x document
> > >"standards status"" on pp7 based on comments by Geoff on pp 4 and pp
> > >9
> > >
> > >I hope we are now over the line!!!!!!! This is where I start praying
> > >;)
> > >
> > >Andrew
> > >
> > >-----Original Message-----
> > >From: Andrew Myles (amyles)
> > >Sent: Thursday, 21 September 2006 8:44 AM
> > >To: 'Geoff Thompson'; Paul Nikolich
> > >Cc: STDS-802-SEC@listserv.ieee.org
> > >Subject: RE: [802SEC] [802SEC] +++EC Email ballot (closes no later
> > >than
> >
> > >25SEP2006)+++ Motion to approve the attached EC SC6 recommendation
> > >
> > >G'day Geoff,
> > >
> > >I believe Carl's issues have now been resolved and he has now voted
> > >APPROVE.
> > >
> > >You have interpreted "8802-1 should be modified so that international
> > >standardisation can always be achieved" to mean "the IEEE even admits
> > >that they are NOT a lower case international standard unless they are
> > >blessed by ISO/IEC". I believe you have misinterpreted what the
> > >sentence actually says. It only says that the process in 8802-1
> > >should be defined so that an ISO/IEC international standard results.
> > >Alternatively, it says that the "endorsement process" provides no
> > >value
> >
> > >to anyone. The evidence is that the endorsement process has never
> > >been used. It does not say that IEEE cannot achieve international
> > >standardisation in another way (sorry for a double negative),
> > >including
> >
> > >by recognition of IEEE as a truly "international" SDO.
> > >
> > >You have interpreted "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" as implying that we believe IEEE is not an international
> > >SDO. However, I believe you have neglected to parse the important
> > >phrase "... through ISO/IEC". The sentence only talks about
> > >establishing an international standard through ISO/IEC. It does not
> > >say anything about or disallow other ways of establishing an
>international standard.
> > >
> > >In both cases we could improve the language but I believe any risk of
> > >misinterpretation is small because we have made our view about the
> > >IEEE
> >
> > >status as an international SDO relative to other SDOs and the reasons
> > >for potentially using ISO/IEC clear on pp9 as follows:
> > >* "The WTO & similar organisations give special status to
> > >"international standards" that assists global acceptance"
> > >* "The definition of an "international standard" is not always clear,
> > >however we note that both ITU-R & ITU-T have recognised IEEE as an
> > >international SDO by granting IEEE membership in the same category as
> > >ISO"
> > >* "Nevertheless, an ISO/IEC standard may be more acceptable to some
> > >stakeholders as an "international standard""
> > >
> > >On pp7 the only item of potential difficulty I cam see is "Recent
> > >attempts to use the endorsement process defined in 8802-1 for
> > >802.11ma approval failed when multiple Liaison statements to SC6 were
> > >not forwarded to the SC6 NBs". This statement is entirely true and
> > >was merely being used to show there are practical difficulties in the
> > >existing process. I guess the SC6 Secretariat could be upset by this
> > >statement although they are not named, but they would need to be very
> > >"thin skinned".
> > >
> > >Andrew
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >-----Original Message-----
> > >From: owner-stds-802-sec@IEEE.ORG
> > >[mailto:owner-stds-802-sec@IEEE.ORG]
> > >On Behalf Of Geoff Thompson
> > >Sent: Thursday, 21 September 2006 6:10 AM
> > >To: Paul Nikolich
> > >Cc: STDS-802-SEC@listserv.ieee.org
> > >Subject: Re: [802SEC] [802SEC] +++EC Email ballot (closes no later
> > >than
> >
> > >25SEP2006)+++ Motion to approve the attached EC SC6 recommendation
> > >
> > >Paul/Colleagues-
> > >
> > >I have to join Carl and recommend that these slides be DISAPPROVED
> > >
> > >Please examine these points carefully. I believe they are worthy of
> > >consideration
> > >
> > >The text, early on (slide 4) says:
> > >          - * 8802-1 should be modified so that international
> > >standardisation can always be achieved ...
> > >
> > >...which (were there an appropriate WTO case and were I supporting
> > >the "other" side) I would take as evidence for presentation to the
> > >judging
> > >body: "Here, the IEEE even admits that they are NOT a lower case
> > >international standard unless they are blessed by ISO/IEC.
> > >
> > >I do not think we want to say that
> > >I do not think that is the case
> > >I think is not an appropriate position for 802 to take wrt the
> > >position
> >
> > >that the IEEE-SA takes for its standards.
> > >
> > >Slide 7 statements open a Pandora's box of issues that might well be
> > >nurturing to a relationship with SC6.
> > >
> > >Slide 9, last bullet
> > >Change:
> > >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.
> > >
> > >To:
> > >A potential benefit for 802 of a cooperative relationship with
> > >ISO/IEC is that it provides 802 WG's with the option of widening
> > >"international
> >
> > >standard" recognition for an 802.x standard through ISO/IEC using a
> > >simple documented cooperation process
> > >
> > >Slide 11:
> > >The title:
> > >"8802-1 should be modified so that international standardisation can
> > >always be achieved ..."
> > >should be changed per my critique of slide 4 above.
> > >
> > >I support slides 12 through 21
> > >
> > >Please carefully consider these items and reconsider your vote
> > >
> > >Sincerely,
> > >
> > >Geoff Thompson
> > >
> > >At 04:23 PM 9/19/2006 , Paul Nikolich wrote:
> > > >Dear EC Members,
> > > >
> > > >A revised version of the IEEE 802 recommendation on the 8802-1 and
> > > >related documents requested by SC6 is attached for EC approval.
> > > >
> > > >Motion: The 802 LMSC EC resolves to adopt the attached SC6
> > > >recommendation version 07 dated 19SEP06 (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 25 Sept 2006 or 24 hours after every EC member
> > > >has
> > >cast a vote.
> > > >
> > > >Regards,
> > > >
> > > >--Paul Nikolich
> > > >----------
> > > >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.