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

SEC BALLOT: Missing email?

Mr. Lidinsky wrote:

>(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.

Since I haven't seen any SEC ballot response that raises technical issues, I'm afraid I may be missing some of the reflector email.