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

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



Roger,

Thank you for the correction. Your editorials have always been positive and the sentence structure that you have pointed out will be corrected once all editorial comments have been received.

As regards the signature, and therefore who actually files this with the FCC, I'll let Paul make that decision. Why? Going back to 2005 when I first became the .18 chair it seems that Paul had me put his and my signature on outgoing filings. At some point, the date isn't clear, it became my signature only. I believe that was a verbal instruction received at a Plenary. Of course the EC would have either voted approval or, in some cases, had a review period for every document so he would be aware of what filings and contributions were being submitted. In any case even when Paul's signature was present he never did the actual filing nor was listed as the PoC (ITU-R) or author (FCC). So again my point is whatever Paul decides in Orlando is what I will do. However, as James has pointed out in the .24 case, if Paul's signature alone is on the document then Paul should do as he did with the .24 document, and that is file it himself.

I hope this explanation of how we got to where we are is useful.

Best regards,

Mike


From: Roger Marks <r.b.marks@ieee.org>
Sent: Thursday, March 07, 2013 10:23
To: Michael Lynch <MJLynch@mjlallc.com>
Cc: STDS-802-SEC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG <STDS-802-SEC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG>
Subject: Re: [802SEC] FW: [802SEC] FW: +++Corrected Update - 10 Day EC Ballot - Reply Comments to the FCC's Incentive Auction Proposal - Docket No. 12-268 +++

Mike,

My vote is recorded incorrectly below. I haven't voted yet.

I'll vote Approve as long as the editorials are corrected, including revising the signature block to show that it is issued the Sponsor Chair.

Roger


On 2013/03/06, at 07:03 PM, Michael Lynch wrote:

Dear EC,
 
Made a correction to the list of those who have voted.
 
Best regards,
 
Mike
 
From: ***** IEEE 802 Executive Committee List ***** [mailto:STDS-802-SEC@ieee.org] On Behalf Of Michael Lynch
Sent: Wednesday, March 06, 2013 7:11 PM
To: STDS-802-SEC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: [802SEC] FW: +++Corrected Update - 10 Day EC Ballot - Reply Comments to the FCC's Incentive Auction Proposal - Docket No. 12-268 +++
 
Dear EC,
 
Please note:
 

1)    That this update is being sent to the “EC reflector” which may or may not deliver it to all members of the EC. Resending it this way should resolve the issue of having used a private address list.

2)    Roger’s editorials will be addressed along with any other editorials the final document prior to being filed with the FCC. In accordance with 8.2 of the OM I will work with the LMSC chair in his filing of this with the FCC.

3)    It is my view that the contents of this FCC filing is not what 8.2 calls a “position statement” which seems to have a different meaning and also a five year life span. Such a rule would cripple the ability of 802 to comment to the FCC, ITU-R, etc., especially where a change in technology or other matters causes 802 to have a change of opinion.

4)    The full form of the original email follows the table of who has or has not voted.

As of 3/06/13 the results are listed below. Please let me know if I haven’t recorded your vote.
 
Nikolich           (NV)
Thaler              DNV         
Gilb                  Disapprove
Rosdahl           DNV
D'Ambrosia     DNV
Chaplin            DNV
Jeffree            Approve
Law                 Approve
Kraemer          Approve
Heile                DNV
Marks              Disapprove
Lynch              Approve
Shellhammer  DNV
Das                  DNV
Mody               Approve
 
Best regards,
 
Mike
 
From: Michael Lynch [mailto:MJLynch@mjlallc.com] 
Sent: Saturday, March 02, 2013 1:10 PM
To: John_DAmbrosia@dell.com; jrosdahl@ieee.org; p.nikolich@ieee.org; pthaler@broadcom.com; gilb@ieee.org;clint.chaplin@gmail.com; tony@jeffree.co.uk; David_Law@ieee.org; bkraemer@ieee.org; bheile@ieee.org; subirdas21@gmail.com;apurva.mody@baesystems.com; freqmgr@ieee.org; r.b.marks@ieee.org; shellhammer@ieee.org; maximilian.riegel@nsn.com; Geoffrey Thompson; Everett O. (Buzz) Rigsbee; Canchi, Radhakrishna; John Lemon; Paul Nikolich (paul.nikolich@ATT.NET)
Subject: +++ 10 Day EC Ballot - Reply Comments to the FCC's Incentive Auction Proposal - Docket No. 12-268 +++
 
Dear EC,
 
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 FCC.
 
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.”
 
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.
 
Best regards,
 
Mike
+1.972.814.4901
---------- 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.