Re: [802SEC] forwarding the amended 802.16m PAR to NesCom
IEEE 802 EC,
I do not think the EC wants to add insult to injury. After
all that went on at the end of the closing EC meeting I do not think the
EC wants to attempt to sidestep the rule that PARs are approved at
closing EC meetings, and not though an electronic ballot.
For your reference, see Section 184.108.40.206 of the 802 P&P
220.127.116.11 Voting at Meetings
Except where otherwise noted in this P&P, approval of an EC motion is
achieved if a simple majority of EC members approve the motion
(approve/(approve + disapprove)). The LMSC Chair only votes if his vote
can change the outcome of a vote. Proxy voting is not permitted.
The following actions have exceptional voting requirements:
* Approval of PARs and Drafts for forwarding to IEEE-SA shall
require approval by a majority of EC members present with voting rights.
This motion is out of order. I call on the 802 chair to
rule the motion out of order.
Somehow, this procedure discussion got started on a private
email list. Since we are an open organization, I have copied the EC
reflector so the discussion is held in public.
From: Carl R Stevenson [mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org]
Sent: Wednesday, November 22, 2006 11:42 AM
To: 'Paul Nikolich'; 'Roger B. Marks'; 'Tony Jeffree'
Cc: 'Vivek Gupta'; 'Stuart J. Kerry'; Shellhammer, Steve; 'Michael
Lynch'; 'Sherman Matthew'; 'John Hawkins'; 'Geoff Thompson'; 'Everett O
Rigsbee'; 'Carl Stevenson'; email@example.com; 'Bob O'Hara'; 'Bob
Heile'; 'Pat Thaler'; 'Mike Takefman (tak)'; firstname.lastname@example.org
Subject: RE: forwarding the amended 802.16m PAR to NesCom
Paul, et al,
Before Paul rules on this matter, as he indicated in his e-mail response
Roger he would do by close of business today ...
I believe that, to be fair to Paul, Roger, and the other members of the
you should know in advance that I object to any move to approve a PAR by
electronic ballot outside of a plenary session.
I also ask - actually insist - that any and all discussion - and
any motions - regarding this matter be conducted in an open and
manner on the EC reflector, rather than in the (figurative, but not
disrespectfully to anyone) "smoke-filled room" of a private distribution
Furthermore, if the PAR *is* "approved" in this manner (via an EC
ballot outside of a face to face EC meeting at a plenary session), I
speak against the approval of the PAR at NESCOM and the SASB on the
that 802 didn't follow its own P&P.
My reason for this position is that the 802 P&P is CLEAR that PARs are
considered by the EC *at plenary sessions* - PERIOD. That's why the 30
presubmission, the Tue/Wed comment/reply deadlines, and other
provisions/requirements exist. To approve some altered version now,
the close of the plenary session, by electronic ballot not only would be
violation of our P&P but would also deny the other WGs the opportunity
review and comment on whether any changes statisfy their concerns (there
were concerns from several WGs and individuals and in the interest of
process they should not be ignored or side-stepped ).
I am concerned that approving PARs via electronic ballot outside of a
plenary session would set an undesirable precedent and put us on a
slope that would effectively circumvent the long-established PAR
process, which I believe is designed to assure that PARs are dealt with
an open and transparent manner that affords all interested parties due
I would also note several additional procedural issues with respect to
matter, since equal and consistent adherence to process is my main
1) the PAR document submitted via the link below is (still) not the PAR
was approved by the WG - it has been altered, per a motion by Mr.
2) With respect to 1), I believe that Mr. Greenspan (with all due
did not as an appointee, per our P&P, become a voting member of the EC
the end of our closing EC meeting. Therefore, Mr. Greenspan's motion to
ammend the PAR during the closing EC meeting should have been ruled out
order by the Chair. (someone else could have made such a motion, but
happen and is therefore water under the bridge)
3)also, while the document linked to below seems to contain at least
the essential elements of the approved PAR form, it does not appear to
"on the approved PAR form" (Mr. Grow made this distinction with respect
the 802.22.2 PAR and, as a result, I resubmitted that PAR to the EC as a
complete and accurate facimile (a .pdf capture from the IEEE-SA website)
the approved, current PAR form more than 30 days before its approval and
WG reaffirmed its approval of the PAR as represented to the EC on the
approved, current PAR form at our WG opening plenary at the beginning of
802 plenary session during which the EC approved the PAR)
4) Finally, (again) it's unclear to me why (and disturbing to me that)
discussion - including an attempt at an EC motion - is taking place on a
private distribution list rather than in an open and transparent manner
the EC reflector (???)
So, why am I making such a fuss? Because I object to the way in which
EC, or at least some portion of it, seems inclined to selectively apply
rules in the most restrictive possible manner in the name of "the
of the process" in some instances, but NOT to apply the rules equally in
other instances (the particulars seem to me, from my observation, to
upon which interests are involved), and I think that that has to stop.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Paul Nikolich [mailto:email@example.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, November 22, 2006 7:30 AM
> To: Roger B. Marks; Tony Jeffree
> Cc: Paul Nikolich; Vivek Gupta; Stuart J. Kerry; Steve
> Shellhammer; Michael Lynch; Sherman Matthew; John Hawkins;
> Geoff Thompson; Everett O Rigsbee; Carl Stevenson;
> firstname.lastname@example.org; Bob O'Hara; Bob Heile; Pat Thaler; Mike
> Takefman (tak); email@example.com
> Subject: forwarding the amended 802.16m PAR to NesCom
> I am in the process of reviewing the proper procedural way
> forward and will make a ruling by the close of business today.
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Tony Jeffree" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
> To: "Roger B. Marks" <email@example.com>
> Cc: "Paul Nikolich" <firstname.lastname@example.org>; "Vivek Gupta"
> <email@example.com>; "Stuart J. Kerry"
> <firstname.lastname@example.org>; "Steve Shellhammer"
> <sshellha@QUALCOMM.COM>; "Michael Lynch"
> <email@example.com>; "Sherman Matthew"
> <firstname.lastname@example.org>; "John Hawkins"
> <email@example.com>; "Geoff Thompson"
> <firstname.lastname@example.org>; "Everett O Rigsbee"
> <email@example.com>; "Carl Stevenson"
> <firstname.lastname@example.org>; <email@example.com>; "Bob O'Hara"
> <firstname.lastname@example.org>; "Bob Heile" <email@example.com>; "Pat Thaler"
> <pthaler@BROADCOM.COM>; "Mike Takefman (tak)"
> <firstname.lastname@example.org>; <email@example.com>
> Sent: Wednesday, November 22, 2006 5:17 AM
> Subject: Re: close of the closing EC meeting
> > Roger -
> > Would be happy to second the motion, but do you really mean
> 5 October?
> > If so, it can wait till March surely... ;-)
> > Regards,
> > Tony
> > At 07:30 22/11/2006, Roger B. Marks wrote:
> >>I have heard nothing further from you on this issue. Further delay
> >>exacerbates the problem.
> >>I therefore request the following EC Electronic Ballot, to
> open on 22
> >>November and close on 29 November:
> >>"To forward the P802.16m PAR (IEEE 802.16-06/054r4), as
> supported by
> >>the the Five Criteria (IEEE 802.16-06/055r3), to NesCom, for
> >>consideration at its meeting of 5 October if at all possible."
> >>The document IEEE 802.16-06/054r4:
> >> http://ieee802.org/16/docs/06/80216-06_054r4.pdf
> >>represents the PAR as amended by the motion of Mr. Greenspan that
> >>carried 14/1/1. The Five Criteria statement IEEE 802.16-06/055r3:
> >> http://ieee802.org/16/docs/06/80216-06_055r3.pdf
> >>is the same document considered in the motions of 17 November.
This email is sent from the 802 Executive Committee email reflector. This list is maintained by Listserv.