Re: [802SEC] BPL Project
FYI, the ISTO is a separate corporation from the IEEE and meets the
requirements described to be a corpate member. It carries the IEEE name
through a trademark/licensing agreement with the IEEE. It is NOT a
division or subsidiary of the IEEE.
Karen
Karen A. Kenney
Associate Managing Director,
Business Administration
IEEE Standards Activities
445 Hoes Lane, P.O. Box 1331
Piscataway, NJ 08855-1331
*************************************
Phone: 1 732 562 3822
Fax: 1 732 562 1571
email: k.kenney@ieee.org
*************************************
check out our website at: http://standards.ieee.org
"Grow, Bob"
<bob.grow@INTEL.C To: STDS-802-SEC@listserv.ieee.org
OM> cc:
Subject: Re: [802SEC] BPL Project
07/26/2005 07:56
PM
Please respond to
"Grow, Bob"
FYI, I note that ISTO is still listed as a corporate member on the web
pages. I don't remember the exact description of why they were
different, but I do remember I didn't buy into the argument.
--Bob Grow
-----Original Message-----
From: Geoff Thompson [mailto:gthompso@NORTEL.COM]
Sent: Monday, July 25, 2005 4:30 PM
To: STDS-802-SEC@listserv.ieee.org
Subject: Re: [802SEC] BPL Project
Steve-
Thanks for your reply.
I will see if I can pursue it. I do believe that the issue is a larger
issue than just this project. I think it is a matter of a deficiency in
IEEE internal provisions for coordination, which are weak at best.
I'm not worried about access to the process for my company (or my own
views
via my company). I am worried about 802's ability as a (legitimate)
materially interested party to express its opinion on the upper layer
issues on this project, even though I expect most of the controversy to
surround PHY and transmission media issues.
Geoff
At 09:05 AM 7/23/2005 , Mills, Steve M (Standards) wrote:
>Geoff,
>
>I would encourage you to take it to ANSI. Speaking for myself, and not
>the CAG, I feel it is within the bounds of what ANSI would deem
>appropriate. I believe that there are many other organizations that
>have similar policies; INCITS and ATIS being examples.
>
>In any case, taking it to ANSI would give us a definitive answer. And,
>if we are found to be in violation, we can fix it. Otherwise, I would
>invite you to participate through your company; who, as you know, is a
>member.
>
>Steve
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Geoff Thompson [mailto:gthompso@NORTEL.COM]
>Sent: Friday, July 22, 2005 3:24 PM
>To: STDS-802-SEC@listserv.ieee.org
>Subject: Re: [802SEC] BPL Project
>
>
>Steve-
>
>I would like to note for the record that I consider the denial of
access
>to
>802 to voting is denial of participation to a "materially interested
>party"
>and thus potentially grounds for an appeal of the IEEE process to
ANSI.
>
>The IEEE needs to get this fixed. We have a legitimate interest in this
>project.
>
>Geoff
>
>
>At 02:54 PM 7/22/2005 , Shellhammer, Steve wrote:
> >802 EC,
> >
> >
> >
> > Paul asked me to look into the possibility of 802
joining
> >the broadband over power-line (BPL) sponsor ballot as an entity.
This
> >item is in the Information Items on today's agenda. Attached is a
> >summary of the report which can be placed in the minutes.
> >
> >
> >
> >Regards,
> >
> >Steve
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >----------
> >This email is sent from the 802 Executive Committee email reflector.
> >This
> >list is maintained by Listserv.
>
>----------
>This email is sent from the 802 Executive Committee email reflector.
>This list is maintained by Listserv.
----------
This email is sent from the 802 Executive Committee email reflector.
This list is maintained by Listserv.
----------
This email is sent from the 802 Executive Committee email reflector. This
list is maintained by Listserv.
----------
This email is sent from the 802 Executive Committee email reflector. This list is maintained by Listserv.