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

Regarding Bob's Question ... RE: [802SEC] [TIME-SENSITIVE MOTION] to APPROVE FCC FILINGS

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Bob O'Hara []
> Sent: Thursday, May 23, 2002 7:44 PM
> To: 802sec (
> Cc: 'Stevenson, Carl R (Carl)'
> Carl, 
> You state in the motion that the list of working groups have 
> approved the documents.  Were these approvals at the March 
> plenary meetings of the working groups?  If this approval was
> obtained at an interim meeting without a quorum present, have
> the working groups conducted the required letter ballots of the
> entire working group membership(s) to truly "approve" the
> documents?
>  -Bob 


I was in Sydney.  Both .11 and .15 were conducting
business to the end of their closing plenaries and
certainly appeared to *me* to have quorums (though in
the interest of strict accuracy, I must admit that
*I* did not, at the time of my motions, call for a
count ...)

I have spoken to Bob Heile and he assured me that
.15 had a quorum.

While I have been unable thusfar to reach Stuart or
Roger regarding your inquiry, I have inquired of .11
and .16 for specific clarification on your question.

HOWEVER, in the meantime, while we await responses
from .11 and .16, if you look at Procedure 4 of the
LMSC rules, specifically the section entitled 
"IEEE 802 position statements," you will see that there
is actually NO requirement for ANY sort of WG approval
of the documents in order for the SEC to approve them
as IEEE 802 positions.  The ONLY specified requirement
for release (filing with the FCC in this case) is a 2/3
approval of the SEC. 

Thus, with all due respect to your concern for the details
of the LSMC rules, the lack of a specific requirement
for WG approval in the LMSC rules would render your inquiry
regarding WG quorums at the most recent interims moot as far
as my pending motion goes.

If you wish, please consider the "RECOGNIZING" portion of my
motion as being merely informative (as a courtesy to the SEC),
rather than conveying information REQUIRED by the LMSC rules.  

Again, due to the importance of the issues surrounding
the proposed FCC filings, I urge the members of the SEC
to promptly vote to approve the motion.

Carl R. Stevenson