On 03/07/2013 07:43 AM, John Notor wrote:
A couple of minor points here:
1. "AFAIK, there is no way in the P&P for the Chair to delegate the
The reason, I suspect, is to have a single voice represent the group."
If the Chair is injured, dies, or is otherwise unavailable, there is no
to delegate the tasks short of electing a new chair?
The relevant text is found in "3.4.2 Vice-Chair(s)"
"... 1st Vice Chair shall carry out the Sponsor Chair's duties if the
Sponsor Chair is temporarily unable to do so or chooses to recuse him-
or herself (e.g., to speak for or against a motion)."
But that isn't delegation, i.e., assigning a responsibility even though
the Chair is present (for example, when Paul delegates responsibility
for running an EC ballot).
So to allay your concerns, if it is a time sensitive document and the
Sponsor Chair is unavailable upon completion of a ballot to approve the
action, the the First Vice Chair could do it. But only the First Vice
Chair and only if the Sponsor Chair is unavailable (e.g., Pat could do
it if Paul is unavailable, but I would not be able to).
Presumably, a vice chair could do it. If a vice chair can do it, then
task can be delegated.
Regulatory submissions are time sensitive documents, in many cases with
deadlines (ITU-R submissions are a good example), so opportunities can
lost if the process is this inflexible.
2. "Upon completion of a ballot, the Sponsor Chair simply forwards the
document, regardless of the group or persion [presumably 'person',
'persion' has a nice ring to it] that prepared the document".
'Simply' is not an exact representation of the actual processes. There
not one standard methodology for submission of regulatory documents to
regulatory groups, or other groups.
Nevertheless, the knowledge is available within IEEE 802 and hence it
can be communicated to the Sponsor Chair. The Sponsor Chair could even
request that such submissions are accompanied by instructions for proper
submission to the appropriate group.
The goal is not to replace the capability, knowledge and expertise in
802.18, but rather to use it as an essential part of our process. A
process that is required by an unchangeable portion of our IEEE 802 P&P.
IMHO: It is best if one voice speaks for the IEEE 802 on all matters and
that we keep these comments in a central location for future reference.
I am confident that we have the expertise in IEEE 802 to be able to
carry this out in an efficient manner.
If the EC Chair can't delegate this detail to someone, the EC Chair has
become an expert on a lot of detail, given the fact that there are over
over 100 regulatory groups worldwide, each with their particular
Referring to comment 1 above, in the absence of the EC Chair, someone
needs to have the knowledge to deal with the submission process.
Isn't it better to allow submission by folks who are experienced in the
submission process, and take this level of detail off the EC Chair's
These may seem like minor details, but it is another case where the
the ground contravene the apparent intent of the rules.
Regulatory filings are complex at a lot of levels, that's why 802.18 was
formed, so that a group of regulatory experts can address the issues in
appropriate ways, including the details of communications with
groups, working with inputs from interested WGs, working in the context
suitable oversight by the EC.
The fact that the various 802 rules have drifted away from this original
intent and practice doesn't obviate the need for those experts to
doing that work and supporting that communication.
I think the course should be to adjust the rules to fit the current
process, which has remained substantially unchanged since 802.18 was
The issue is that the IEEE 802 P&P states that these are issued by the
Sponsor Chair. This requirement is part of a "shall not be changed"
section of the P&P, and as such it is a requirement from AudCom.
From: ***** IEEE 802 Executive Committee List *****
[mailto:STDS-802-SEC@ieee.org] On Behalf Of James P. K. Gilb
Sent: Wednesday, March 06, 2013 7:38 PM
Subject: Re: [802SEC] +++ 10 Day EC Ballot - Reply Comments to the FCC's
Incentive Auction Proposal - Docket No. 12-268 +++
The rules state that it is the Chair of the group that is making
issues the statement.
In other words:
Position of IEEE 802 -> IEEE 802 Chair
Position of IEEE 802.x - > IEEE 802.x Chair
AFAIK, there is no way in the P&P for the Chair to delegate the task.
The reason, I suspect, is to have a single voice represent the group.
What I did after the November meeting was to forward the documents for
802.24 requested EC approval to Paul asking him to forward to the
So, there is no reason for the Sponsor Chair to be an active member of
802.18. The Sponsor Chair becomes involved once a document is under
consideration by the EC. Upon completion of a ballot, the Sponsor Chair
simply forwards the document, regardless of the group or persion that
prepared the document.
On 03/06/2013 04:45 AM, Michael Lynch wrote:
As someone not as immersed in the rules as you are could I ask for a
From what I have read over the past several days it seems that
according to the rules only Paul can communicate with governmental
agencies. Is that a correct intrepretation? If it is then we have
some changes in our operating procedures to make.
If Paul is unable to delegate responsibility for these type of actions
then he will likely need to become, at least from an 802.18 view
point, an active participant there. I would think he would need to be
aware of the work in all of the various regulatory subgroups in 802.
Or do you see some way that he can delegate the role of communicating
with governmental organizations?
-----Original Message----- From: James P. K. Gilb <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Sent: Wednesday, March 06, 2013 01:47 To: Roger Marks
<email@example.com> Cc: Michael Lynch <MJLynch@mjlallc.com>; EC List
John_DAmbrosia@dell.com <John_DAmbrosia@dell.com>; firstname.lastname@example.org
Rosdahl <email@example.com>; firstname.lastname@example.org Nikolich
<email@example.com>; Pat Thaler <firstname.lastname@example.org>;
email@example.com Chaplin <firstname.lastname@example.org>; Tony
Jeffree <email@example.com>; David_Law@ieee.org Law
<David_Law@ieee.org>; firstname.lastname@example.org <email@example.com> Kraemer
<firstname.lastname@example.org>; Bob Heile <email@example.com>; firstname.lastname@example.org
Subir <email@example.com>; "" 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@ATT.NET> < <paul.nikolich@ATT.NET>> Subject: Re: +++
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
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.
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
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
From: Roger Marks [mailto:email@example.com] Sent: Monday, March
04, 2013 9:46 AM To: Michael Lynch Cc: John_DAmbrosia@dell.com;
firstname.lastname@example.org; email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org;
David_Law@ieee.org; email@example.com; 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.
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 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
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.
list is maintained by Listserv.