Re: [802SEC] forwarding the amended 802.16m PAR to NesCom
Carl, Steve,
I would like to call your attention to the fact that you both
voted Approve on my EC email ballot on forwarding an amended PAR
to NESCOM for continuous processing for 802.17b. I would assume
that means that you didn't actually think such a motion was out
of order back then.
Bob O'Hara has commented that our rules do NOT preclude a PAR
being voted on by the EC outside of the closing meeting during
a plenary. I believe that this motion is in order.
WRT to the implied comparison between this PAR and the PAR extension
for 802.20 there is a clear difference. The 802.20 PAR was never
approved by the voters of 802.20. This particular issue has been
appealled to the SASB, and the ruling upholds the EC decision to
reject the PAR and the interpretation that the majority of the EC
had wrt PAR requirements. Quoting from that appeal panel decision.
"The Appeal Panel in its review of the evidence does not find the
action of the 802 EC in disapproving the PAR extension request to be
arbitrary. The Appeal Panel finds that it was reasonable for the 802 EC
to expect to have a completed PAR extension request form, approved by
the 802.20 Working Group, submitted for its approval. Clause 2.1 "IEEE
802
Approval Guidelines" of the 802 LMSC Guidelines indicate that PAR
extensions
require the approval of the working group, the working group Chair, the
802
EC and the 802 EC Chair. Without a completed form having made its way
though
the approval hierarchy, it was reasonable for the 802 EC to conclude
that the
PAR extension request form submitted to the 802 EC, but never seen or
voted
upon by the 802.20 Working Group, should be sent back to the 802.20
Working
Group for its approval."
A PAR was approved by the voters of 802.16 and the EC always has the
opportunity
to modify the PAR. It is the role of the WG Chair to decide if the
modifications
to the PAR would likely be supported by the WG. If the chair feels
uncomfortable
moving forward on the amended PAR, he/she may choose to delay and have
the WG approve the new text and try again. Roger clearly feels the WG
would support
the PAR as modified. The Chair of the 802.20 WG feels that their
concerns
have been met.
Steve, Carl, did your groups hold votes on this PAR and/or give you
directed
positions?
I do believe that if people feel strongly that the WG should see these
amendments
then they should vote to disapprove.
cheers,
mike
-------------------------------------------
Michael Takefman tak@cisco.com
Distinguished Engineer, Cisco Systems
Chair IEEE 802.17 Stds WG
3000 Innovation Dr, Ottawa, Canada, K2K 3E8
voice: 613-254-3399 cell:613-220-6991
----------
This email is sent from the 802 Executive Committee email reflector. This list is maintained by Listserv.