[802SEC] Two Questions: motion to forward P802.16/D4-2001 for Sponsor Ballot
As I understand it, with the WG recirculation ballot, you received two new
individuals with no votes. Per our discussion, you need quick resolution or
will need to suffer significant schedule difficulties with a pending sponsor
ballot. Assuming you will help contact SEC members, we should be able to
move quickly here.
1) Could you, in a simple, single, short, paragraph, explain the one
individual's no-vote and why you believe it was "out of order".
2) The second individual, simply supported an already existing no comment.
Could you, in a simple paragraph, explain what this repeating no vote is
On answers to these questions, I will conduct an immediate SEC ballot to
proceed to sponsor ballot.
Jim Carlo (email@example.com) Cellular:1-214-693-1776
TI Fellow, Networking Standards at Texas Instruments
Vice Chair, IEEE-SA Standards Board
Chair, IEEE802 LAN/MAN Standards Committee
From: Roger B. Marks [mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org]
Sent: Friday, August 03, 2001 3:46 PM
Subject: motion to forward P802.16/D4-2001 for Sponsor Ballot
In July, the 802 SEC granted "Conditional Approval" to forward
P802.16/D4-2001 to Sponsor Ballot upon completion of Confirmation
Ballot #3b. The ballot concluded yesterday. The outcome is documented
in these two reports:
*IEEE P802.16 Confirmation Ballot #3b Comment Resolution Report
IEEE 802.16-01/42 <http://ieee802.org/16/docs/01/80216-01_42.pdf>
*IEEE P802.16 Confirmation Ballot #3b Voting Report
IEEE 802.16-01/43 <http://ieee802.org/16/docs/01/80216-01_43.pdf>
In brief, the comment report includes only two comments. One was
rejected for being out of scope. The other was ruled a duplicate of
an earlier comment, with no new technical content to justify a
The Voting Report indicates that we received one change of vote, from
Approve to Disapprove. It also reports the outcome: "The Working
Group Chair declares that Confirmation Ballot #3b concluded
successfully and that no recirculation is required. As as result, the
Chair declares that Working Group Letter Ballot #3 has concluded
successfully as of 3 August 2001."
Although 802.16's Letter Ballot #3 is now complete, we are not
authorized to continue to Sponsor Ballot because we have failed to
fulfill one of the stipulated conditions of approval: namely, no new
Therefore, with Letter Ballot #3 complete but lacking authorization
to forward it for Sponsor Ballot, I must come back to the SEC for
such authorization. I would therefore like to place the following
motion before the SEC for an email ballot: "To forward
P802.16/D4-2001 for Sponsor Ballot".
I respectfully request that the email ballot close by noon Eastern
time on Friday August 10. This would give us an opportunity to launch
Sponsor Ballot on Friday afternoon and thereby have it close hours
before our September meeting begins.
Dr. Roger B. Marks <mailto:email@example.com>
Chair, IEEE 802.16 WG on Broadband Wireless Access <http://ieee802.org/16>
phone: +1 303 497 3037 fax: +1 303 497 7828