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

[802SEC] Arnie's concern regarding submittals to ITU WP8F


I don't understand the meaning of "his intention of making a submittal".
Do you mean that he is making a submittal on behalf of his Working Group
or do you mean that he is planning a submittal as an individual or from
a non-802 entity (e.g. his employer or another body). WP8F in your email
means the ITU WP8F I assume. That makes it a communication to an
"intergovernmental body" which comes under 14.2 of our rules rather than
Coordination with Other Standards Bodies under 14.1, right?

If he intends to make a submittal from his Working Group, then it is
covered by our rules. Under 14.2.2 Working Group or TAG Communications,
the submittal would need 75% approval of the Working Group or TAG and
sent to the EC for 5 day review during which a motion could be made to
block release of the submittal and submittal would be withheld while we
voted on the motion.

If he is making the submittal as an individual or due to his role in an
non-802 organization, I believe that is allowed. In that case, the
submittal should make clear that it is not from the WG or IEEE 802. We
didn't give up the ability to participate in other standards when we
took our leadership roles in IEEE 802. I participate in and submit input
to T11 and at times in IETF without passing those submittals by LMSC.


P.S., in reviewing the rules I noticed that Clause 14 of our P&P
references 5.1.4 of the SB OM but 5.1.3 is the correct reference for
Statements to external bodies. 5.1.4 is on Standards publicity. When we
redo the P&P to split out bylaws, we should correct and probably should
put clause title in external references so that the reader has some help
if the referenced document changes clause numbers. I also noticed that
5.1.3 of the SB OM says all external statements should include in the
opening paragraph or as a footnote to that paragraph:

"This document solely represents the views of name of group and does not
necessarily represent a position of either the IEEE or the IEEE
Standards Association."

I don't recall seeing that statement in all our external communications.

-------------- Forwarded Message: -------------- 
To: greenspana@BELLSOUTH.NET 
Subject: Rejected posting to STDS-802-SEC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG 
Date: Fri, 2 Nov 2007 20:51:43 +0000 
Paul has requested that I bring a concern that I have to the attention
of the EC and that this subject be added as an agenda item for
discussion by the EC in Atlanta. This message is in the way of a heads
up to the members of the EC so that we can exchange views on the Ec
My concern is that the chair of 802.16 has announced his intention of
making a separate submittal to WP8F other than the joint submittal
administered by 802.18 at the direction of the EC. I think that a
separate submittal by 802.16 is inappropriate and contrary to the
express direction of the EC. I request that the EC clarify their
direction so that all working groups will be playing on a level playing
Arnie Greenspan 

This email is sent from the 802 Executive Committee email reflector.  This list is maintained by Listserv.