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

Re: [802SEC] +++ 10 Day EC Ballot - Reply Comments to the FCC's Incentive Auction Proposal - Docket No. 12-268 +++


I don't intend to be cute, my apologies if the email came off wrong. I am being serious about this.

However, I don't understand what specific issues are in the P&P or OM that actually causes insurmountable problems with regards to the document submission. The requirements are:

 - Approved by 2/3 vote of EC (we have been doing this)
 - Issued by the Sponsor Chair (adds one step to the process)
- Copied to the Sponsor (already done) and IEEE SA Standards Board Secretary (we don't do this, but perhaps we should?) - Posted on the website (all .18 submissions already do this as they are on mentor, linked from the IEEE 802 LMSC web site) - Have a statement on the web site that says the position statements expires in 5 years after issue (not done).

The last one probably needs some tuning. The implication of any filing is that it is the current IEEE 802 position at the time of filing, and presumably, for the near future. What good would a communication be if it was no longer valid after it was issued?

So I plead ignorance, please tell me what are the specific problems that I have missed?

James Gilb

On 03/06/2013 10:21 PM, John Notor wrote:
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

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.


John Notor Sent from my iPhone Mobile: 1 (408) 799-2738

On Mar 6, 2013, at 7:48 PM, "James P. K. Gilb" <>


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

If the position changes, then we need to issue a new position

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.

James Gilb

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
[] 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);; Rosdahl; Nikolich; Pat Thaler;
Chaplin; Tony Jeffree; Law;
<> Kraemer; Bob Heile; Subir;
"Buzz paul.nikolich@ATT.NET" <""apurva.mody" SSA)
Mody, Lynch <>,
J Shellhammer <>,Riegel Maximilian
<>,Thompson Geoffrey
<>,Everett O. Rigsbee
<>,Radhakrishna Canchi
<>,John Lemon <>,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.