Thread Links Date Links
Thread Prev Thread Next Thread Index Date Prev Date Next Date Index


I vote "Yes" to the SEC ballot with the following comments:

(1) We are voting on IEEE802 responding to the FCC NPRM with a specific
document.  We are *NOT* voting on the document itself.  The responses
from some of the members of the SEC seem confused on this point.  I
remind the members of the SEC that we, by our own rules, are chartered
primarily to deal with procedural issues.  (See Section 3 of our
operating rules.)  I was there when the rules were first adopted.  (One
of the founding fathers you might say.)  I can personally testify that
it was the express intention that the SEC not be a technical court.

(2) I suggest that most of the SEC is *NOT QUALIFIED* to vote on the
technical merits of the document.

(3) I certainly am part of the above majority.  My "Yes" vote is based
upon procedural considerations.

			Bill Lidinsky

Jim Carlo wrote:
> ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> SEC OFFICIAL EMAIL BALLOT     802.0/28Sept1999
> Issue Date:   28Sept1999        Closing Date: 1October1999
> Moved By:     Vic Hayes
> Seconded By:  Bob Heile
> Move: Authorize responding from IEEE 802 to the FCC NPRM (Docket No. 99-231)
> with the document 11-99/209-r5 (in principal). This letter has some
> opposition from
> the proposers of the rules-change.  It was approved by 802.11 by 802.11
> EMAIL ballot:
> 68-Yes, 3-No, 3-Abstain.
> This letter  "expresses opposition to the proposed rule changes which would
> allow wider channels for Frequency Hopping Spread spectrum (FHSS) systems as
> described in the Notice of Proposed Rule Making (the "Notice") in this
> proceeding. Since that time, the membership has continued to
> analyze the proposed rule changes. Two working groups of the Committee
> (802.11 on wireless Local Area Networks and 802.15 on Wireless Personal Area
> Networks) held an Interim Meeting in San Rosa CA (13 - 17September 1999)
> and, based on additional material submitted, 2 respectfully submits these
> additional comments in this proceeding."
> Note that this letter adds to information provided in letter approved by the
> SEC in July. Also another letter has been voted on (see ballot #2). The two
> letters may be combined into a single letter.
> Approval is requested for this letter (in principal) to allow for editing by
> Vic Hayes, Bob Heile and Jim Carlo based on various comments (including IEEE
> staff) being provided. The letter needs to be submitted to the FCC by
> 4October.
> If you want to see this proposed letter and appendices, please go to the web
> at:
>   ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>                           Name: 9209r58a.pdf
>    9209r58a.pdf           Type: Acrobat (application/pdf)
>                       Encoding: base64
>                Download Status: Not downloaded with message