On 2013/04/18, at 11:52 AM, Michael Lynch wrote:
I hope that it is permitted for me to make my responses inline. From: Roger Marks [mailto:email@example.com]
Sent: Wednesday, April 17, 2013 7:15 PM
To: Michael Lynch
Subject: Re: [802SEC] +++ 10 Day EC Ballot - Comments to the European Union Radio Spectrum Policy Group +++
I have three procedural issues on which I would like your comment:
(1) The motion refers to OM Subclause 8.2. However, that subclause contains two completely different procedures. I think it is pretty clear that the intent is to follow OM Subclause 8.2.1, but I think that the motion should state this explicitly to avoid ambiguity. Can you confirm?
Roger, I intentionally picked the same OM Subclause used on the previous EC 10 Day Ballot since, at least in my opinion, the EC chair still has some decisions to make and put into place, i.e. does he become the sole individual sending documents to (and receiving from) government agencies or does he do as was pointed out by David Ringle on March 20th and decide to delegate this responsibility in accordance with 3.4.1 f of the 802 P&P. I do not believe that Paul has yet formally announced a decision on that topic hence 8.2 seems sufficient at this time.
(2) I am concerned that the document under review is posted publicly, indicating that it is from IEEE 802, but does not indicate that it is a draft. The general public may confuse this with an IEEE 802 position.
The document title is “Draft Response to EU RSPG Consultation”, which should be sufficient to identify the document as a draft, even if a watermark was not included on the pages. Further the document that the comments are being submitted to is also clearly marked as a draft document. The text quoted in the ballot announcement explains what the EU RSPG’s intentions are in releasing a draft for comments.
(3) I am puzzled about the 802.18 teleconference procedures and notices. According to the minutes (18-13-0039), when 802.18 met in March, it approved a motion that "The chair is empowered to conduct teleconferences as needed through July 29, 2013," with the following discussion recorded: "A concern was brought up on having this open ended. It was explained that this doesn’t call the meeting, but allows the chair to be able to call a meeting, with a 10 day advanced notification with agenda, etc."
You noted that, on 26 March, the 802.18 Vice Chair announced a meeting on 11 April, but that "The meeting was opened as announced on April 11th but while we had a quorum the meeting was recessed until April 12th." It seems to me that the effect of this "recess" was to call a meeting with less than 24 hours notice. But perhaps you see it differently, so let me ask you: How much advance notice was provided for the meeting of April 12?
I'm not saying that this issue is critical to the motion. In fact, 8.2.1 (unlike 8.2.2) doesn't specify a requirement for WG/TAG approval. Still, this seems like a good opportunity for me to request a better understanding of the 802.18 telecon notice requirements and procedures. Can you point me to a document?
Roger, the motion that you cite was approved at the end of the March meeting and is a normal procedural one that is compliant with the TAG’s rules. If you were to check the 802.18 teleconference schedule you would see that the date for that meeting is now May 2nd. The April 11th meeting was properly announced by being added on March 25th to the teleconference schedule on the 802.18 web site. On April 11th the meeting was opened and then was recessed until the next day, April 12th, without objection by those in attendance (in other words by consensus). The recess was announced by email to the EC reflector, the 802.18 reflector and the 802.11 Regulatory SC reflector at 12:48 PM CDT on April 11th. Doing so provided notice to those who were not at the meeting when it began on April 11th. Recessing a meeting is a well understood way of extending the meeting to meet circumstantial needs. The need for the recess was partly due to an unintended schedule conflict with the 802.11 Regulatory SC meeting, and partly due to the fact that a procedural mistake had made the teleconference bridge impossible to use. As for a document to point you to I would use “Robert’s Rules of Order”, where it says that “A recess is generally short in duration, though it may last several hours., but is never for more than a day.” This recess was for a day. As stated in the meeting minutes: “6. The teleconference was recessed at 12:20 PM CDT until Friday, April 12, 2013 at 12:00 PM CDT.” IMHO a day is 24 hours.
On 2013/04/17, at 03:24 PM, Michael Lynch wrote:
As approved by the IEEE 802.18 RR-TAG during a pre-announced conference call the RR-TAG approved Document 18-13-0047-06 as a response to the European Union Radio Spectrum Regulatory Group (EU RSPG). The document was approved by a vote of 7 yes, 0 no and 0 abstentions and will, with necessary edits and formatting changes made by the IEEE 802.18 chair, be forwarded to the EU RSPG. The next scheduled Thursday conference call will be on April 19th to deal with a response to FCC Docket 13-49, on 5GHz U-NIII and Part 15 Rules. I have asked Paul to allow me to conduct a ten day EC email ballot to approve submitting the comments (Document 18-13-0047-06) to the EU RSPG. 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.” Paul also asked that I provide the full EC the same background material that I provide to him. So I will “cut and paste” that data here just prior to the actual motion. “As mentioned in an earlier email IEEE 802.18 held two conference calls to deal with an unforeseen consultation from the European Union Radio Spectrum Regulatory Group. I feel that for your benefit more background would be useful. At the RR-TAG closing Plenary on March 21st we made the customary motions for conference calls and, based on a known document soon to be forthcoming from the FCC, set a date of April 19th to review and respond to that document. The minutes reflecting that can be found on IEEE 802.18’s Mentor web site as Document 18-13-0039-00. However, as happens in the regulatory world, another request for comments was forwarded to the RR-TAG. This one was from the European Union Radio Spectrum Policy Group. While the document is watermarked “Draft” in the introduction to that document it states: REMARKS ON THE STATUS OF THIS DOCUMENT The following draft Opinion on Strategic Challenges facing Europe in addressing the Growing Spectrum Demand for Wireless Broadband has been agreed for public consultation by the RSPG at its plenary meeting on 20 February 2013. It must be noted that this draft Opinion, particularly its annexes dealing with the identification of frequency bands with potential for wireless broadband are work in progress. The RSPG has not taken any final decision with respect to recommending particular portions of spectrum for wireless broadband and welcomes in this regard any feedback from stakeholders on the proposals in the draft Opinion and its annexes. Following the public consultation and based also on the comments received, the RSPG plans to finalise the draft Opinion and its annexes, and present them at the next RSPG plenary meeting for approval. I am providing you with this data since some may say that we (802) are providing comments on a “draft” document. Indeed the EU RSPG plans an using those comments in their final document. Based on the experience of some in the RR-TAG we may still have be able to comment further in this proceeding. The need for this call was submitted to 802.18 by the 802.11 chair, Bruce Kraemer, on March 22nd. John Notor, the 802.18 vice-chair, sent the announcement of the April 11th conference call to consider the EU RSPG consultation to the RR-TAG reflector on March 26th. The meeting was opened as announced on April 11th but while we had a quorum the meeting was recessed until April 12th. The reason for the recess was an overlap with another meeting that would have taken a number of key participants out of the 802.18 meeting. On April 12th the meeting resumed and lasted approximately 1.5 hours. The minutes from that meeting are attached for your review. There was extensive discussion and resulted in the document (18-13-0047-06) being approved 7/0/0. Those present are reflected in the attached minutes. There is one error in the minutes, that being the correct email for Ron Porat of Broadcom which is firstname.lastname@example.org and not email@example.com. I think that the error is of a “cut and paste” nature.” The approval of this contribution was a result of the continuing RR-TAG’s Thursday conference calls. Now that I have given you all of this useful (or not) background please let me move to the request for the motion. “To approve, under OM Subclause 8.2, document 18-13-0047-06 subject to the early close provision of OM Subclause 4.1.2.." Comments are to be submitted to the EU RSPG by April 29th, 2013. The ballot will start April 17th and end on April 26th.
---------- 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.