The below is my reply sent to the reflector.
Dear Mr. Canchi and Mr. Murakami,
It is unfortunate that you have concerns regarding the 802.20 Working
Group moving forward with the timely development of a standard. The call for
proposals for the November Plenary will continue as planned and scheduled. I
fully expect a number of high quality technology proposals will be available
for the members of the Working Group to review at the Plenary.
Regarding the questions in your letter of October 17, 2005, all the
IEEE 802 Policies and Procedures were followed and there is no basis for your
proposed appeal. At the beginning on the September Interim session, I
carefully reviewed the voting members present and declared quorum for the
session. This review of the voters was done with all members present and
stated in the minutes. During the session there were no quorum calls
requested.
The proposed Technology Selection Process made by the
Chair was posted and announced before the lunch recess on Thursday. The
document was reviewed by the working group. The document was seven pages in
length excluding the annexes. The Chair allowed a voted on the acceptance of
the contribution by the working group members. The motion to accept the
contribution was passed by a vote of 18 in favor and 2 against. Please see the
published draft minutes regarding all motions and requests of the Chair.
Also please review section 7.2.4.1 Chair’s Function of the current IEEE
802 Policies and Procedures. The Chair of an IEEE 802 Working Group decides
procedure issues per the IEEE 802 Policies and Procedures. Therefore the Chair
can propose and institute a technology selection process without the vote of
the working group members. The requirement to have an adopted Technology
Selection Process before a Call for Proposals is not a mandatory procedure in
all IEEE 802 Working Groups. The 802.20 Technology Selection Process, as
reviewed at the September session, was adopted by motion by a vote of 25
approve and 1 against.
All members of IEEE 802 are entitled to an appeal process. However
before moving with an appeal to the IEEE 802 Executive Committee, I urge you
to review the publicly available IEEE 802 Policies and Procedures and the
draft minutes of the IEEE 802.20 Working Group Session #16. I am currently in
Australia and will return
to the US on October 23. I suggest we work
to arrange a call during the week of October 24.
Regards,
Jerry Upton
Chair IEEE802.20 Working Group
In a message dated 10/19/2005 1:21:51 AM Central Standard Time,
joanne@arraycomm.com writes:
Jerry,
I have
read the draft meeting minutes thoroughly. Thus far, I have not seen
your reply to Kyocera posted on the 802.20 website. I continue to
support their appeal and request that you give their concerns due
consideration and seek a mutually acceptable resolution.
Best
regards,
Joanne
Joanne,
Please see my response to Kyocera's request sent to the
802.20 reflector. Since you were not in attendance in the session on
Wednesday and Thursday, I suggest you review the posted minutes before
pursuing any further steps regarding a potential appeal.
Regards,
Jerry Upton
In a message dated 10/18/2005 5:01:39 PM Central Standard
Time, joanne@arraycomm.com writes:
Jerry,
Please find attached my letter expressing
ArrayComm's support for Kyocera's
request to rescind the adoption of
the 802.20 Technology Selection Process
and the Call for
Proposals. I hope you will positively consider and grant
their
request in a timely manner. Please contact me at
joanne@arraycomm.com
to arrange a time when we could discuss our
concerns and work toward a
positive resolution.
Best
regards,
Joanne Wilson
VP, Standards
ArrayComm,
LLC