Re: [802SEC] RE: [802SEC] forwarding the amended 802.16m PAR to NesCom
Carl,
As Mike Takefman pointed out in an earlier email to the EC reflector,
both you and Steve voted in favor to forward an amended PAR (802.17b)
for continuous processing (early consideration). Is it just convenient
*now* that you object to voting on a PAR on the reflector and not then?
-Bob
-----Original Message-----
From: ***** IEEE 802 Executive Committee List *****
[mailto:STDS-802-SEC@ieee.org] On Behalf Of Carl R Stevenson
Sent: Wednesday, November 22, 2006 3:21 PM
To: STDS-802-SEC@listserv.ieee.org
Subject: Re: [802SEC] RE: [802SEC] forwarding the amended 802.16m PAR to
NesCom
Bob,
My point is that PARs and Drafts are specifically mentioned under voting
at
meetings as having special requirements.
There are other parts in the P&P that certainly point to the clear
intent
(and "tradition" for those who invoke *that* when it suits their
purposes)
that PARs only be approved at the closing EC meeting.
Additionally, as I have pointed out in other e-mails, 7.1.3.4
"Electronic
Balloting" clearly indicates that electronic balloting is reserved for
issues that MUST be resolved prior to the opening of the following
plenary -
and because of the long timelines in ITU-R, the controversy surrounding
this
PAR, and the other procedural issues I've pointed to, I do NOT believe
that
the approval of this PAR meets that standard of necessity.
Regards,
Carl
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-stds-802-sec@ieee.org
> [mailto:owner-stds-802-sec@ieee.org] On Behalf Of Bob O'Hara (boohara)
> Sent: Wednesday, November 22, 2006 5:59 PM
> To: STDS-802-SEC@listserv.ieee.org
> Subject: [802SEC] RE: [802SEC] forwarding the amended 802.16m
> PAR to NesCom
>
> Carl,
>
> 7.1.3.3 deals with how voting at meetings is conducted. It
> does not encompass WHAT items may be voted on at meetings.
> If we are to follow your line of reasoning that because
> voting on PARs is mentioned as having specific requirements
> for voting conducted at meetings, PARs may be voted on ONLY
> at meetings, we could conclude that because everything else
> voted on at meetings is covered by the general clause in
> 7.1.3.3, NOTHING can be voted on outside of meetings.
>
> This is clearly not the case, as the EC votes on items
> outside of meetings all the time. The requirements in
> 7.1.3.3 are on the voting itself, not the matters on which
> the vote is conducted.
>
> -Bob
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: ***** IEEE 802 Executive Committee List *****
> [mailto:STDS-802-SEC@ieee.org] On Behalf Of Carl R Stevenson
> Sent: Wednesday, November 22, 2006 2:04 PM
> To: STDS-802-SEC@listserv.ieee.org
> Subject: Re: [802SEC] forwarding the amended 802.16m PAR to NesCom
>
> Bob (O'Hara), et al,
>
> I am inserting content from another e-mail to me from Bob
> O'Hara (in this green text, hoping that at least most can
> receive HTML e-mail that will show the green text for
> context) in the interest of consolidating this discussion in
> one (hopefully) more coherent thread ...
>
> Carl,
>
> I wonder what P&P you are reading. I can find no limitation
> such as you describe below, that requires that PARs "are
> considered by the EC *at plenary sessions* - PERIOD". In
> fact, the only reference to when a PAR can be considered is a
> restriction on when it can NOT be considered.
>
> The following sentence is from the fourth paragraph of clause
> 17, Procedure for PARs:
>
> "It will be assumed that insufficient coordination and/or
> inter Working Group consideration had occurred prior to the
> submission of the PAR if this deadline is not met, and the
> proposed PAR will not be considered by the Executive
> Committee at the closing Executive Committee meeting."
>
> The section quoted immediately above, on its face, clearly
> indicates that PARs are "considered at the closing Executive
> Committe meeting" - it does not provide for, or even alude to
> (nor does any other section of the P&P), any alternative
> means of considering PARs ... and I am unaware of any
> instance where a PAR was considered and/or approved other
> than at the closing Executive Committee meeting at a plenary session.
>
> I further retiterate my concern, stated below in this e-mail
> thread, that "approving PARs via electronic ballot outside of
> a plenary session would set an undesirable precedent and put
> us on a slippery slope that would effectively circumvent the
> long-established PAR approval process, which I believe is
> designed to assure that PARs are dealt with in an open and
> transparent manner that affords all interested parties due process."
>
> The only requirement for consideration of a PAR by the EC is
> that it must have met the WG/TAG coordination requirements
> (as well as meeting the 30-day advance circulation requirement).
>
> I disagree - as I elaborate herein, a plain reading of the
> explicit text of the P&P clearly indicates that PARs and
> Drafts are only considered for approval (and with exceptional
> voting requirements) "at meetings" per
> 7.1.3.3 (see elaboration below)
>
> So, while your statements below may be reason for you to vote
> against the motion at the EC, there is no support there for
> you, at either NesCom or the SB, to speak against the PAR as
> being approved in violation of any of our P&P. If you believe
> there is support for your position in the P&P, please quote
> the appropriate text for us.
>
> I disagree ... and cite a number of salient points:
>
> Section 7.1.3.3 of the P&P "Voting at Meetings" specifically
> states that "Approval of PARs and Drafts for forwarding to
> IEEE-SA shall require approval by a majority of EC members
> present with voting rights"
> (emphais
> added) Since the topic of this section is "Voting at
> Meetings" it clearly indicates that such approvals will take
> place at meetings. Also, I fail to see how a member can be
> "present" in an electronic ballot (clearly, one can
> participate in an electronic ballot, but "presence" by its
> definition indicates presence/participation in a face to face
> meeting). Thus, it is clear to me that PARs and Drafts can,
> per the P&P, only be approved for forwarding to IEEE-SA (or
> its committees) by a face to face EC meeting (which only
> occur at plenary sessions).
>
> Furthermore, the section on "Electronic Balloting" (7.1.3.4)
> is limited to
> "decision(s) that cannot be made prior to the close of one
> plenary but must be made prior to the opening of the
> following plenary" (emphasis added).
> I
> think it's abundantly clear that this provision only
> addresses exceptional circumstances with a compelling need
> (historically, per my experience, financial matters that must
> be dealt with to meet contractual obligations and regulatory
> filings with pressing and set deadlines). It also requires
> that "all comments from those who are not members of the EC
> shall be considered." I fail to see how this latter
> requirement can be met with a "short-fuse" EC electronic
> ballot, given the fact that we are in the midst of the
> holiday season and it is reasonable to assume that a large
> percentage of the interested 802 constituency are unlikely to
> be following this issue/debate.
>
> Given the long timeframe for ITU even defining the
> requirements for IMT-Advanced, I don't believe that there is
> a compelling argument that the subject PAR must be approved
> prior to the next plenary. This in itself (the lack of
> compelling necessity) would, per the explicit wording of the
> P&P, preclude the approval of the subject PAR by EC
> electronic ballot under 7.1.3.4, since it is clear from the
> language of 7.1.3.4 that the provision for electronic EC
> ballots is intended to be limited to exceptional cases based
> on a clear necessity.
>
> Given that 17.1 of the P&P states that "Any standards
> activity whose aim is to produce a Standard, Recommended
> Practice, or Guide must submit a PAR to the IEEE-SA Standards
> Board within six months of beginning work." I don't believe
> that 802.16 is precluded from "beginning work" in the area of
> IMT-Advanced - work can begin, with a PAR following from the
> March 2007 plenary (I see no reason that the PAR cannot be
> "adjusted" to eliminate any objections to its approval then),
> thus there is no clear necessity for the immediate approval
> of a PAR that is still the subject of unresolved controversy
> as expressed by the written concerns of several WGs, several
> individuals, the concerns expressed verbally by several
> speakers from the floor at the November 200 closing EC
> meeting, and the procedural issues that have been raised.
>
> Therefore, I maintain that approval of the subject PAR (or any other
> PAR)
> other than at the closing EC meeting at a plenary session is
> contrary to the P&P and I reserve the right to speak against
> the approval of the PAR at NesCom and/or the SASB on that basis.
>
> In closing, I reiterate my point that I making such a fuss
> only because I object to the way in which the EC, or at least
> some portion of it, seems inclined to selectively apply our
> rules in the most restrictive possible manner in the name of
> "the integrity 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 depend upon which
> interests are involved), and I think that that has to stop.
>
> Regards,
> Carl
>
>
>
>
> _____
>
> From: Bob O'Hara (boohara) [mailto:boohara@cisco.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, November 22, 2006 3:24 PM
> To: Shellhammer, Steve; wk3c@wk3c.com; Paul Nikolich; Roger
> B. Marks; Tony Jeffree
> Cc: Vivek Gupta; Stuart J. Kerry; Michael Lynch; Sherman
> Matthew; John Hawkins; Geoff Thompson; Everett O Rigsbee;
> Carl Stevenson; bob.grow@ieee.org; Bob O'Hara; Bob Heile; Pat
> Thaler; Mike Takefman (tak); a.greenspan@ieee.org;
> STDS-802-SEC@ieee.org
> Subject: RE: forwarding the amended 802.16m PAR to NesCom
>
>
> Steve,
>
> What the heck does this have to say about when a PAR motion can be
> considered? The only requirement stated here is the number of votes
> required to approve a PAR. See my earlier email on Carl's point, as
> well.
>
>
> -Bob
>
>
>
>
> _____
>
> From: Shellhammer, Steve [mailto:sshellha@qualcomm.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, November 22, 2006 12:12 PM
> To: wk3c@wk3c.com; Paul Nikolich; Roger B. Marks; Tony Jeffree
> Cc: Vivek Gupta; Stuart J. Kerry; Michael Lynch; Sherman Matthew; John
> Hawkins; Geoff Thompson; Everett O Rigsbee; Carl Stevenson;
> bob.grow@ieee.org; Bob O'Hara; Bob Heile; Pat Thaler; Mike Takefman
> (tak);
> a.greenspan@ieee.org; STDS-802-SEC@ieee.org
> Subject: RE: 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 7.1.3.3 of the 802 P&P
>
>
> 7.1.3.3 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.
>
>
>
> Regards,
>
> Steve
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Carl R Stevenson [mailto:wk3c@wk3c.com]
> 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'; bob.grow@ieee.org; 'Bob O'Hara'; 'Bob Heile'; 'Pat
> Thaler'; 'Mike Takefman (tak)'; a.greenspan@ieee.org
> Subject: RE: forwarding the amended 802.16m PAR to NesCom
> Importance: High
>
>
>
> Paul, et al,
>
>
>
> Before Paul rules on this matter, as he indicated in his
> e-mail response
> to
>
> Roger he would do by close of business today ...
>
>
>
> I believe that, to be fair to Paul, Roger, and the other
> members of the
> EC,
>
> 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
> certainly
>
> any motions - regarding this matter be conducted in an open and
> transparent
>
> manner on the EC reflector, rather than in the (figurative, but not
> intended
>
> disrespectfully to anyone) "smoke-filled room" of a private
> distribution
>
> list.
>
>
>
> Furthermore, if the PAR *is* "approved" in this manner (via an EC
> electronic
>
> ballot outside of a face to face EC meeting at a plenary session), I
> will
>
> speak against the approval of the PAR at NESCOM and the SASB on the
> grounds
>
> 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
> day
>
> presubmission, the Tue/Wed comment/reply deadlines, and other
>
> provisions/requirements exist. To approve some altered version now,
> after
>
> the close of the plenary session, by electronic ballot not
> only would be
> in
>
> violation of our P&P but would also deny the other WGs the opportunity
> to
>
> review and comment on whether any changes statisfy their
> concerns (there
>
> were concerns from several WGs and individuals and in the interest of
> due
>
> 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
> slippery
>
> slope that would effectively circumvent the long-established PAR
> approval
>
> process, which I believe is designed to assure that PARs are
> dealt with
> in
>
> an open and transparent manner that affords all interested parties due
>
> process.
>
>
>
> I would also note several additional procedural issues with respect to
> this
>
> matter, since equal and consistent adherence to process is my main
> issue:
>
>
>
> 1) the PAR document submitted via the link below is (still)
> not the PAR
> that
>
> was approved by the WG - it has been altered, per a motion by Mr.
> Greenspan.
>
>
>
> 2) With respect to 1), I believe that Mr. Greenspan (with all due
> respect)
>
> did not as an appointee, per our P&P, become a voting member of the EC
> until
>
> 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
> of
>
> order by the Chair. (someone else could have made such a motion, but
> didn't
>
> happen and is therefore water under the bridge)
>
>
>
> 3)also, while the document linked to below seems to contain at least
> most of
>
> the essential elements of the approved PAR form, it does not appear to
> be
>
> "on the approved PAR form" (Mr. Grow made this distinction
> with respect
> to
>
> 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)
> of
>
> the approved, current PAR form more than 30 days before its
> approval and
> my
>
> 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
> the
>
> 802 plenary session during which the EC approved the PAR)
>
>
>
> 4) Finally, (again) it's unclear to me why (and disturbing to me that)
> this
>
> discussion - including an attempt at an EC motion - is taking
> place on a
>
> private distribution list rather than in an open and
> transparent manner
> on
>
> the EC reflector (???)
>
>
>
> So, why am I making such a fuss? Because I object to the way in which
> the
>
> EC, or at least some portion of it, seems inclined to
> selectively apply
> our
>
> rules in the most restrictive possible manner in the name of "the
> integrity
>
> 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
> depend
>
> upon which interests are involved), and I think that that has to stop.
>
>
>
>
>
> Regards,
>
> Carl
>
>
>
>
>
> > -----Original Message-----
>
> > From: Paul Nikolich [mailto:paul.nikolich@att.net]
>
> > 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;
>
> > bob.grow@ieee.org; Bob O'Hara; Bob Heile; Pat Thaler; Mike
>
> > Takefman (tak); a.greenspan@ieee.org
>
> > Subject: forwarding the amended 802.16m PAR to NesCom
>
> >
>
> > Roger,
>
> >
>
> > I am in the process of reviewing the proper procedural way
>
> > forward and will make a ruling by the close of business today.
>
> >
>
> > Regards,
>
> >
>
> > --Paul
>
> >
>
> > ----- Original Message -----
>
> > From: "Tony Jeffree" <tony@jeffree.co.uk>
>
> > To: "Roger B. Marks" <r.b.marks@ieee.org>
>
> > Cc: "Paul Nikolich" <p.nikolich@ieee.org>; "Vivek Gupta"
>
> > <vivek.g.gupta@intel.com>; "Stuart J. Kerry"
>
> > <stuart@ok-brit.com>; "Steve Shellhammer"
>
> > <sshellha@QUALCOMM.COM>; "Michael Lynch"
>
> > <mjlynch@nortel.com>; "Sherman Matthew"
>
> > <matthew.sherman@baesystems.com>; "John Hawkins"
>
> > <jhawkins@nortel.com>; "Geoff Thompson"
>
> > <gthompso@nortel.com>; "Everett O Rigsbee"
>
> > <everett.o.rigsbee@boeing.com>; "Carl Stevenson"
>
> > <carl.stevenson@ieee.org>; <bob.grow@ieee.org>; "Bob O'Hara"
>
> > <bob.ohara@ieee.org>; "Bob Heile" <bheile@ieee.org>; "Pat Thaler"
>
> > <pthaler@BROADCOM.COM>; "Mike Takefman (tak)"
>
> > <tak@cisco.com>; <a.greenspan@ieee.org>
>
> > 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:
>
> > >>Paul,
>
> > >>
>
> > >>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.
>
> > >>
>
> > >>Roger
>
> > >>>
>
>
> ----------
> 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.