I guess my take on this is "What does public mean?"
The comments submitted to spectrum regulators like the FCC are not posted in
a public place in the same manner as a press release or an advertisement
might be. Rather, at least in the case of the FCC, if they are available,
they are available in a open database system. It is possible for a member of
the public with knowledge of the FCC's documentation system to find IEEE 802
filings, but it is not posted on a billboard.
Taking this to its logical conclusion, WGs and TGs would have to seek
individual authorization from the IEEE 802 EC to upload every individual
document to IEEE Mentor, and the EC Chair would have to do the uploading,
since IEEE Mentor is a public database similar to the FCC's.
From: ***** IEEE 802 Executive Committee List *****
[mailto:STDS-802-SEC@ieee.org] On Behalf Of James P. K. Gilb
Sent: Tuesday, March 05, 2013 11:47 PM
Subject: Re: [802SEC] +++ 10 Day EC Ballot - Reply Comments to the FCC's
Incentive Auction Proposal - Docket No. 12-268 +++
With regards to item 3), unfortunately, there is some overlap between the OM
and the P&P.
The P&P requires:
- 2/3 approval for public statements
- Public statements are only issued by the Chair.
Both of these are in subclauses that can only be added to, hence these
requirements come from AudCom and it is highly unlikely we can change them.
As for "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 issue.", we can and probably should change
that in some fashion.
IMHO, it would be nice to have a single area on the web site that does
contain EC positions so that we don't contradict ourselves or issue the same
I also agree with Roger that the argument that the OM was not followed in
the past does not mean that it should not be followed now.
On 03/04/2013 11:38 AM, Roger Marks wrote:
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
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
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 issue.")
From: Roger Marks [mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org]
Sent: Monday, March 04, 2013 9:46 AM
To: Michael Lynch
Cc: John_DAmbrosia@dell.com; email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org;
email@example.com; David_Law@ieee.org; firstname.lastname@example.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. 12-268 +++
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 Sponsor Chair."
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 the
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:
Reply comments are to be submitted to the FCC by March 12, 2013.
The ballot will start March 2nd and end on March 11th, 2013.
I am using the "private list" since once again there seems to be an issue
with either delay or non-delivery when using the EC reflector. This has also
impacted the 802.18 reflector.
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.