Re: [802SEC] +++ 10 Day EC Ballot - Reply Comments to the FCC's Incentive Auction Proposal - Docket No. 12-268 +++
This is all very cute, but does not really address the issues related to regulatory bodies, whose policies and rules about document submissions do not revolve around IEEE 802 policies or operating procedures.
A little common sense here would be helpful, and a recognition of what influence we've had since the beginning of 802.18 using the process to date.
Sent from my iPhone
Mobile: 1 (408) 799-2738
On Mar 6, 2013, at 7:48 PM, "James P. K. Gilb" <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
If a position statement has an expiration date, then we need to state that in the document. If it is less than 5 years, then it should say so.
If the position changes, then we need to issue a new position statement.
BTW: Having a timeout on the position statement of some duration (it is in the OM and so we can select it) is a good idea for just the reason you state.
On 03/06/2013 09:04 AM, Michael Lynch wrote:
> Another item that doesn't seem to fit our filings with the FCC or any other regulatory body: they are not position statements or papers and should not have a five year life cycle.
> "All IEEE 802 LMSC communications to government bodies shall be issued by the IEEE
> 802 LMSC Chair as the view of IEEE 802 LMSC (stated in the first paragraph of the
> statement). 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."
> For example what we filed after the January meeting may not be the view of the wireless groups by the time they meet in September. So to have them considered as IEEE 802 position statements or papers doesn't fit their intended purpose. Our views can and sometimes do change in less than a year rather than the five years referenced in the OM.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: James Gilb [mailto:email@example.com] On Behalf Of James P. K. Gilb
> Sent: Wednesday, March 06, 2013 1:47 AM
> To: Roger Marks
> Cc: Michael Lynch; EC List (STDS-802-SEC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG); John_DAmbrosia@dell.com; firstname.lastname@example.org Rosdahl; email@example.com Nikolich; Pat Thaler; firstname.lastname@example.org Chaplin; Tony Jeffree; David_Law@ieee.org Law; email@example.com <firstname.lastname@example.org> Kraemer; Bob Heile; email@example.com Subir; "Buzz paul.nikolich@ATT.NET" <""apurva.mody"@baesystems.com SSA) Mody,firstname.lastname@example.org Lynch <email@example.com>,firstname.lastname@example.org J Shellhammer <email@example.com>,Riegel Maximilian <firstname.lastname@example.org>,Thompson Geoffrey <email@example.com>,Everett O. Rigsbee <BRigsBieee@comcast.net>,Radhakrishna Canchi <Radhakrishna.Canchi@kyocera.com>,John Lemon <firstname.lastname@example.org>,Paul Nikolich " ">
> Subject: Re: +++ 10 Day EC Ballot - Reply Comments to the FCC's Incentive Auction Proposal - Docket No. 12-268 +++
This email is sent from the 802 Executive Committee email reflector. This list is maintained by Listserv.