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

Re: [802SEC] Governmental and standards body communication in the OM

Likewise for 802.17.


On 7/2/2008 2:22 PM, Tony Jeffree wrote:
Bob -

Our experience in 802.1 has been very similar - we regularly receive communications from working groups in ITU-T operating at a similar level in the organization to ourselves, and we respond to them as we would to any other working group operating at a similar level in any other standards organization. This is WG-level technical business. Treating such interactions as interactions with an intergovernmental body seems to me to be absurd.

Certainly, some kinds of interaction with some parts of the ITU-T may need to be treated a different way; however, I have personally not come across an example where that has been the case in the course of business transacted within 802.1. Other WGs' mileage may vary.


At 20:24 02/07/2008, Grow, Bob wrote:
Pat, Mike:

It certainly hasn't be the practice of 802.3 to go through the EC on
Ethernet matters from ITU-T.  802.3 has received occasional direct
requests for consideration of technical features, to give or receive
advice on Ethernet features, to discuss usage of EtherTypes and similar
things Ethernet.  A recent area of interaction has been on 40 Gb/s and
100 Gb/s Ethernet (e.g., mapping those interfaces to OTN).  All
communications were clearly from and to 802.3, or in some cases under
the informal communications encouraged for subgroups between an ITU-T
subgroup and HSSG/P802.3ba.

I doubt the EC wants to see and approve those kind of communications.


-----Original Message-----
From: ***** IEEE 802 Executive Committee List *****
[mailto:STDS-802-SEC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG] On Behalf Of Michael Lynch
Sent: Tuesday, July 01, 2008 1:57 PM
Subject: Re: [802SEC] Governmental and standards body communication in
the OM


I've been looking at this and maybe it would be good to provide some
definition of both what the ITU is and what it does. Also the process
that IEEE SA has in place to deal with inputs to ITU-R, ITU-T and ITU-D.

All of the ITU is an intergovernmental organization. The terms of
reference for the ITU are defined in the Constitution and Convention
(CS/CV) by the Member States. Sector Members and Associate Members are
permitted to join and participate but companies joining are required to
have Member State approval. Some may see ITU-T as an SDO which is
logical but it is still controlled by Member States. Some may view the
ITU-R as being only regulatory in nature but that is just one of its

ITU-T may create standards which are called recommendations. But there
is regulatory work done there, at least in the realm of setting telecom
settlement rates and the International Telecommunication Regulations
(ITRs).  Both of those are certainly a Member State matters and it is
expected that there will be a revision of the ITRs done in the next year
or two. Member States are able to block the approval of ITU-T
recommendations. IEEE SA has a technical liaison to ITU-T who should
function the same as I do in my role as the technical liaison between
the SA and ITU-R.

ITU-R does have a regulatory function and creates a treaty known as the
Radio Regulations (RR). It also creates recommendations that identify
standards from outside of ITU-R for specific purposes, e.g. IMT.
Additionally it creates recommendations that are not based on other
SDO's standards. For example the recommendation from SG1 (SM.329) on oob
emissions. The 2003 World Radiocommunication Conference (WRC) took text
from that recommendation and included it in Appendix 3 of the RR. Other
recommendations have been incorporated by reference in the RR which
makes them mandatory. So ITU-R should also be seen as a SDO in addition
to being a global regulatory body.

I would suggest that both ITU-T and ITU-R be treated in the same manner,
that is as intergovernmental bodies. If indeed the IEEE SA ITU-T liaison
functions in the same manner as the liaison for ITU-R then ITU-T inputs
should be handled by that person. It seems unlikely that IEEE 802 inputs
would have a regulatory impact in ITU-T but should be considered and
approved by the EC just as inputs to ITU-R are done, the latter of
course after approval by 802.18.

Hopefully this is some help. It seems we will have an interesting Sunday
evening in Denver.




From: Pat Thaler []
Sent: Friday, June 27, 2008 20:52
To: STDS-802-SEC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG; Lynch, Michael (RICH1:2T00)
Subject: Governmental and standards body communication in the OM


An issue arose during the comment resolution meeting on which we would
like your input.

We have separate procedures for communications with other standards
bodies and with governmental and intergovernmental bodies but in the
past there has been some confusion regarding the ITU because it involves
aspects of both. I would like to avoid having to figure out which rule
applies in the heat of the moment. Is there some clarification that we
can add to the P&P to distinguish the two? For example, the portion of
ITU that regulates spectrum use vs the standards making in ITU-R and

The comment reference is 135.


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.