On 2013/03/04, at 12:08 PM, Michael Lynch wrote:
1. If you find the 2nd sentence of paragraph 11 unintelligible
then please propose new wording.
Maybe it was intended to be two sentences, like this:
"In light of this proposal we would like to emphasize the
importance of ensuring that the entire spectrum under channel 51
will continue to be utilized by licensed, unlicensed, wireless
microphones or TV operation. IEEE 802 Standards for operation in
TVWS have been and are being developed to minimize interference to
DTV reception in compliance with FCC rules."
I don't know the intent since I did not participate.
2. You may not be aware of the issues that have been occurring
with regards to the EC reflector. Therefor it seemed that there
was no other way to guarantee that this email would ever reach
the intended audience other than to use the private list. I’m
adding the reflector to this response. Let’s see if it will work
this week. My last several attempts to use it ended up with
messages not being delivered. At Paul’s request I was in contact
with the SA and they were not able to resolve the matter. In that
case last week the use of the private list was agreed to by Paul
and with the tight timeline that this ballot is on it seemed best
to use it to better guaranty being received by the EC..
I don't see your message in the archive. Maybe this response will
end up there.
3. Paul did very clearly authorize me to conduct this ballot.
Do you feel that there was another reference other than 8.2 that
should have been used or, that under 8.2, he is not authorized to
delegate to someone else the role of conducting a ballot? The
reference to 8.2 was also used on the very recent comments on the
FCC’s 3.5 GHz NPRM without objection by anyone. In reviewing 8.2
I see nothing that prevents the Sponsor Chair from delegating the
function of communicating with governmental bodies. On the other
hand if the Sponsor Chair is the only one who can communicate
with governmental organizations then indeed he should be the sole
point of contact for all communications to and from the FCC,
Ofcom, ITU, etc. Maybe the OM needs to be revised (again) to make
it clear that this role can be delegated?
I agree that the issue I've raised could have been applied to past
ballots as well. Still, the precedent of ignoring the OM doesn't
invalidate the OM. 8.2 doesn't specify who conducts the ballot, but
it does state who needs to issue the statement (though the meaning
of "issue" might be debated). There are also some specific
post-ballot elements of 8.2.1 that I suspect have not been observed
in the past ("Such communications shall be copied to the Sponsor
and the IEEE-SA Standards Board Secretary and shall be posted on
the IEEE 802 LMSC web site. The IEEE 802 LMSC web site shall state
that all such position statements shall expire five years after
From: Roger Marks [mailto:email@example.com] Sent: Monday, March
04, 2013 9:46 AM To: Michael Lynch Cc: John_DAmbrosia@dell.com;
firstname.lastname@example.org; email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org;
David_Law@ieee.org; email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org;
email@example.com; Geoffrey Thompson; Everett O. (Buzz)
Rigsbee; Canchi, Radhakrishna; John Lemon; Paul Nikolich
(paul.nikolich@ATT.NET) Subject: Re: +++ 10 Day EC Ballot - Reply
Comments to the FCC's Incentive Auction Proposal - Docket No.
I have a few editorial and procedural comments.
(1) The second sentence of paragraph 11 is unintelligible.
(2) Conducting a ballot by circulation to a closed email list
does not meet the requirement of OM 4.1.2: "Provision shall be
made for the IEEE 802 LMSC membership to observe and comment on
Sponsor electronic ballots. All comments from those who are not
members of the Sponsor shall be considered."
(3) Since the language indicates OM Subclause 8.2, then the
elements of 8.2.1(b) apply. In particular: "All IEEE 802 LMSC
communications to government bodies shall be issued by the
On 2013/03/02, at 12:10 PM, Michael Lynch wrote:
During the January wireless interim meeting in Vancouver 802.18
began work on a response to the FCC’s 3.5 GHz NPRM proceeding. It
was not possible to complete the response at that meeting so a
series of conference calls were announced to complete the work.
Two calls, one on January 24th and the second on January 31st,
were used to complete the document Doc. 18-12-0109-06. The
document was approved by 802.18 by a vote of 5 yes, 0 no and 1
abstention, submitted to and approved by the EC and filed with
During the discussion of any other business the group decided to
continue to have the Thursday evening calls during the period of
February 7th to March 14th. The positive result of that action
was the approval on February 28th of proposed reply comments to
the FCC’s “Incentive Auction” proposal (Docket No. 12-268). This
takes advantage of the FCC having extended the reply comment date
to March 12th.
I have asked Paul to allow me to conduct a ten day EC email
ballot to approve submitting the reply comments (Doc.
18-13-0016-06-0000) to the FCC.
Paul’s response to my request is:
“I will authorize a 10 day EC email ballot, to be conducted by
Mike Lynch, for the following motion.”
“To approve, under OM Subclause 8.2, document 18-13-0016-06-0000
subject to the early close provision of OM Subclause 4.1.2.."
Moved: Mike Lynch
Seconded: Apurva Mody
Link to the document: