Re: [802SEC] +++ 10 Day EC Ballot - Reply Comments to the FCC's Incentive Auction Proposal - Docket No. 12-268 +++
Pat,
This is not an objection to including an expiration (or expiry) date in the
document, but I did do a brief review of some of the players (AT&T, Verizon,
Wi-Fi Alliance) who submitted comments in the FCC Incentive Auction
proceeding, and none of them included expiration dates or expiry dates based
on searching the document text, including cover letters when available.
The one thing to remember is that the document does not disappear from the
FCC database, perhaps never, but at least over many years. I was not able to
find an explicit mention in the FCC rules or on the FCC web site that
suggested documents were ever removed from the database.
The rules allow companies or individuals to submit corrections or updates,
but there does not seem to be any process to remove the document. The
persistence of the documents may be a requirement of some other Federal law,
I'm not sure.
Other spectrum regulatory administrations may handle this differently.
John
-----Original Message-----
From: ***** IEEE 802 Executive Committee List *****
[mailto:STDS-802-SEC@ieee.org] On Behalf Of Pat Thaler
Sent: Thursday, March 07, 2013 9:46 AM
To: STDS-802-SEC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [802SEC] +++ 10 Day EC Ballot - Reply Comments to the FCC's
Incentive Auction Proposal - Docket No. 12-268 +++
Generally, an expiry date on a document ensures that it goes away at some
point even if it isn't replaced. It doesn't mean that it will always be
valid for that long. For example, some of our drafts and all IETF IDs have
an expiration date but they often are replaced with a new draft before it
expires.
I don't think we send out a position statement expecting to contradict it 6
months later. Yes we may refine it and send out a new statement before 5
years. New information or new participation might change our views more
radically, but it isn't what we expect when we send a statement out. It
would undermine the usefulness of a position statement if we sent it out
with a very short expiration.
Regards,
Pat
-----Original Message-----
From: Michael Lynch [mailto:MJLynch@mjlallc.com]
Sent: Wednesday, March 06, 2013 9:04 AM
To: James P. K. Gilb; Roger Marks
Cc: EC List (STDS-802-SEC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG); John_DAmbrosia@dell.com;
jrosdahl@ieee.org Rosdahl; p.nikolich@ieee.org Nikolich; Pat Thaler;
clint.chaplin@gmail.com Chaplin; Tony Jeffree; David_Law@ieee.org Law;
bkraemer@ieee.org <bkraemer@ieee.org> Kraemer; Bob Heile;
subirdas21@gmail.com Subir; "Buzz paul.nikolich@ATT.NET"
<""apurva.mody"@baesystems.com SSA) Mody,freqmgr@ieee.org Lynch
<freqmgr@ieee.org>,shellhammer@ieee.org J Shellhammer
<shellhammer@ieee.org>,Riegel Maximilian
<maximilian.riegel@nsn.com>,Thompson Geoffrey <thompson@ieee.org>,Everett O.
Rigsbee <BRigsBieee@comcast.net>,Radhakrishna Canchi
<Radhakrishna.Canchi@kyocera.com>,John Lemon <jlemon@ieee.org>,Paul Nikolich
" ">
Subject: RE: +++ 10 Day EC Ballot - Reply Comments to the FCC's Incentive
Auction Proposal - Docket No. 12-268 +++
James,
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.
Regards,
Mike
-----Original Message-----
From: James Gilb [mailto:jpgilb@gmail.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; jrosdahl@ieee.org Rosdahl; p.nikolich@ieee.org
Nikolich; Pat Thaler; clint.chaplin@gmail.com Chaplin; Tony Jeffree;
David_Law@ieee.org Law; bkraemer@ieee.org <bkraemer@ieee.org> Kraemer; Bob
Heile; subirdas21@gmail.com Subir; "Buzz paul.nikolich@ATT.NET"
<""apurva.mody"@baesystems.com SSA) Mody,freqmgr@ieee.org Lynch
<freqmgr@ieee.org>,shellhammer@ieee.org J Shellhammer
<shellhammer@ieee.org>,Riegel Maximilian
<maximilian.riegel@nsn.com>,Thompson Geoffrey <thompson@ieee.org>,Everett O.
Rigsbee <BRigsBieee@comcast.net>,Radhakrishna Canchi
<Radhakrishna.Canchi@kyocera.com>,John Lemon <jlemon@ieee.org>,Paul Nikolich
" ">
Subject: Re: +++ 10 Day EC Ballot - Reply Comments to the FCC's Incentive
Auction Proposal - Docket No. 12-268 +++
All
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
position twice.
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.
James Gilb
On 03/04/2013 11:38 AM, Roger Marks wrote:
> On 2013/03/04, at 12:08 PM, Michael Lynch wrote:
>
>> Roger,
>>
>> 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 issue.")
>
> Roger
>
>> Best regards,
>>
>> Mike
>>
>> From: Roger Marks [mailto:r.b.marks@ieee.org]
>> Sent: Monday, March 04, 2013 9:46 AM
>> To: Michael Lynch
>> Cc: 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; shellhammer@ieee.org; maximilian.riegel@nsn.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 +++
>>
>> Mike,
>>
>> 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..."
>>
>> Roger
>>
>>
>>
>> On 2013/03/02, at 12:10 PM, Michael Lynch wrote:
>>
>>
>> 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:
>>
>> https://mentor.ieee.org/802.18/dcn/13/18-13-0016-06-0000-draft-reply-
>> comments-to-fcc-tv-band-incentive-auction-nprm.doc
>>
>> 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.