Re: [802SEC] +++ 10 Day EC Ballot - Reply Comments to the FCC's Incentive Auction Proposal - Docket No. 12-268 +++
James,
I guess the question is who should become the expert on filing, the EC
Chair, who apparently is lumbered with the task of doing the filing or the
regulatory TAG Chair.
If the EC Chair has to become an expert at the filing, then the Chair
should figure it out, with help initially, and stay current. That means
other folks may not bother to stay current.
The web sites change, the personnel change, in the case of various groups,
maybe you only file with Industrie Canada once a year, or UK Ofcom once a
year or the EU once a year, and their filing procedures may change, the
names of the responsible organizations may change (the EU has gone through
a number of changes of organization names and responsibilities over the
last few years).
The FCC is presently in the process of updating it's web site, and if
someone hasn't tried to file comments to the FCC recently, they might have
trouble even finding the right place to do it. The FCC requires a filing
on a proceeding to input/select the right proceeding number for the
filing, other agencies have similar requirements.
Is the EC Chair responsible for creating cover letters? All ITU filings
need a cover letter, some filings with other regulatory agencies do as
well (not needed for the FCC for normal comments or reply comments, but
may be needed for some other filings, like ex parte filings).
Is the EC Chair responsible for ensuring the filings happen in a timely
fashion? There are filing deadlines, but there are also reasons not to
file too early.
This is a lot of detailed stuff for an otherwise pretty busy position like
EC Chair to have to deal with hands on.
Just a few questions?
John
John Notor
President/Chief Technologist
Notor Research
Mobile: 1.408.799.2738
Skype: 1.408.457.1814
On 3/8/13 11:49 AM, "James P. K. Gilb" <gilb@ieee.org> wrote:
>John
>
>If the procedure to send a document to a group is to give it to the
>liaison, then the Chair would give it to the appointed liaison to
>deliver. In the same way, if the procedure was to print it out on
>paper, sign it and send it next-day, return receipt requested, then that
>is what the Chair would do.
>
>Lets discuss details in Orlando. I will prepare a summary of the issues
>and alternatives and we can work through them.
>
>It would help if you can provide me with a few concrete examples on
>non-trivial submission procedures so the EC can make sure that our
>process works with them.
>
>James Gilb
>
>On 03/08/2013 10:42 AM, John H Notor wrote:
>> James,
>>
>> Thanks for the clarification of the rules.
>>
>> Does this mean that only the EC Chair can be the liaison to ITU-R?
>>
>> You seem to be saying that only the EC Chair can file a document on
>>behalf
>> of IEEE 802. So, he can't delegate the filing? In other words, his name
>>is
>> on the document, but does that mean he has to physically undertake the
>> filing?
>>
>> John
>>
>> John Notor
>> President/Chief Technologist
>> Notor Research
>>
>> Mobile: 1.408.799.2738
>> Skype: 1.408.457.1814
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On 3/8/13 10:28 AM, "James P. K. Gilb" <gilb@ieee.org> wrote:
>>
>>> John
>>>
>>> Answers below
>>>
>>> On 03/07/2013 07:43 AM, John Notor wrote:
>>>> James,
>>>>
>>>> A couple of minor points here:
>>>>
>>>> 1. "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."
>>>>
>>>> If the Chair is injured, dies, or is otherwise unavailable, there is
>>>>no
>>>> way
>>>> 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
>>>> the
>>>> task can be delegated.
>>>>
>>>> Regulatory submissions are time sensitive documents, in many cases
>>>>with
>>>> hard
>>>> deadlines (ITU-R submissions are a good example), so opportunities can
>>>> be
>>>> 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',
>>>> although
>>>> 'persion' has a nice ring to it] that prepared the document".
>>>>
>>>> 'Simply' is not an exact representation of the actual processes. There
>>>> is
>>>> 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
>>>> to
>>>> become an expert on a lot of detail, given the fact that there are
>>>>over
>>>> well
>>>> over 100 regulatory groups worldwide, each with their particular
>>>> submission
>>>> process.
>>>>
>>>> Referring to comment 1 above, in the absence of the EC Chair, someone
>>>> else
>>>> 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
>>>> plate?
>>>>
>>>> These may seem like minor details, but it is another case where the
>>>> facts on
>>>> 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
>>>> regulatory
>>>> groups, working with inputs from interested WGs, working in the
>>>>context
>>>> of
>>>> 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
>>>> continue
>>>> doing that work and supporting that communication.
>>>>
>>>> I think the course should be to adjust the rules to fit the current
>>>> 802.18
>>>> process, which has remained substantially unchanged since 802.18 was
>>>> formed.
>>>>
>>>> John
>>>
>>> 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.
>>>
>>> James Gilb
>>>
>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>> 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
>>>> 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 +++
>>>>
>>>> Mike
>>>>
>>>> The rules state that it is the Chair of the group that is making
>>>> statement
>>>> 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
>>>> which
>>>> 802.24 requested EC approval to Paul asking him to forward to the
>>>> appropriate person.
>>>>
>>>> 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.
>>>>
>>>> IMHO.
>>>>
>>>> James Gilb
>>>>
>>>> On 03/06/2013 04:45 AM, Michael Lynch wrote:
>>>>> James,
>>>>>
>>>>> As someone not as immersed in the rules as you are could I ask for a
>>>>> clarification?
>>>>>
>>>>>> 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?
>>>>>
>>>>> Best regards,
>>>>>
>>>>> Mike
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> -----Original Message----- From: James P. K. Gilb <gilb@ieee.org>
>>>>> Sent: Wednesday, March 06, 2013 01:47 To: Roger Marks
>>>>> <r.b.marks@ieee.org> Cc: Michael Lynch <MJLynch@mjlallc.com>; EC List
>>>>> (STDS-802-SEC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG) <STDS-802-SEC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG>;
>>>>> John_DAmbrosia@dell.com <John_DAmbrosia@dell.com>; jrosdahl@ieee.org
>>>>> Rosdahl <jrosdahl@ieee.org>; p.nikolich@ieee.org Nikolich
>>>>> <p.nikolich@ieee.org>; Pat Thaler <pthaler@broadcom.com>;
>>>>> clint.chaplin@gmail.com Chaplin <clint.chaplin@gmail.com>; Tony
>>>>> Jeffree <tony@jeffree.co.uk>; David_Law@ieee.org Law
>>>>> <David_Law@ieee.org>; bkraemer@ieee.org <bkraemer@ieee.org> Kraemer
>>>>> <bkraemer@ieee.org>; Bob Heile <bheile@ieee.org>;
>>>>>subirdas21@gmail.com
>>>>> Subir <subirdas21@gmail.com>; "" 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@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 +++
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> 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.