Re: [802SEC] +++EC Email ballot (closes no later than 29NOV2006)+++ Motion to foward the P802.16m PAR to NesCom
Paul,
I must respectfully disagree with your interpretation of the "proper
procedural thing to do" in this case, and object strenuously to the issuance
of this EC electronic ballot for a number of reasons.
As you know, the original motion to approve (a variant of) the subject PAR
failed at the closing EC meeting.
A second motion (that I maintain should have been rejected as, in essence, a
motion for reconsideration, which can only be brought by one who voted on
the prevailing side on the original, failed motion - but wasn't) was not
approved.
(That second motion did not come to a vote because of the adjournment of the
meeting - the close of the plenary session).
Furthermore, said second unapproved motion should have further been ruled
out of order because it ended up being an amended motion that was the
product of a (well-intentioned) motion to amend that should have never the
less itself been properly ruled out of order because the mover was not a
voting member of the EC at the time, per the P&P.
Subsequently (within the past day or two), debate ensued - inappropriately -
and a motion was, in effect, made and seconded, for this electronic ballot -
all on a private distribution list rather than on the EC reflector. (I
emphasize that the "motion" you refer to in your announcement of this
electronic ballot was NOT made and seconded on the EC reflector, but on a
private e-mail distribution list.)
I called for that debate to move to the EC reflector in the interest of
openness, transparency, and due process.
(I have not yet seen an EC motion properly made and seconded on this EC
reflector - only in the course of the inappropriate debate on a private
distribution list, which I consider to be an invalid motion.)
Just moments ago, before seeing the e-mail below announcing the EC
electronic ballot to which I object, I responded to the *first* discussions
of this matter on the EC reflector, outlining my arguments against e-mail
balloting of a new PAR approval as being contrary to the 802 P&P.
I know that I am being redundant with the e-mail referred to in the
paragraph immediately above, but I feel compelled to point out that 7.1.3.4
of the P&P clearly indicates that electronic balloting is only to be used in
exceptional circumstances where a decision MUST be made before the next
plenary session. I don't believe that this PAR approval rises to that
standard for reasons I've outlined in my very recent, but unconsidered (due
the timing of your e-mail below), comments on the EC reflector.
7.1.3.4 also requires that "all comments from those who are not members of
the EC shall be considered." Since the first debate on this issue only
appeared on the EC reflector a matter of a couple of hours ago at most, and
this PAR was/is the subject of some controversy with concerns from several
other WGs, I don't see how you can go to a "short fuse" electronic vote and
meet that requirement, particularly with consideration of the Thanksgiving
holiday period.
7.1.3.4 also states that "the minimum duration of an electronic ballot shall
normally be 10 days ..." Your opening of the ballot on 22Nov2006 and
closing of the ballot on 29Nov2006 does not meet that requirement of the P&P
and I see no compelling justification for suspending the "normal" minimum.
In short, while I don't mean to criticize you personally Paul - I know you
try your best to do the right thing - however, this whole issue is replete
with procedural flaws and the ballot should be withdrawn.
I believe that this entire sequence of events is further - graphic -
evidence of my assertion that the EC, or at least some portion of it, seems
inclined to selectively apply our rules depending upon which interests are
involved, and I think that that has to stop.
Carl
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-stds-802-sec@ieee.org
> [mailto:owner-stds-802-sec@ieee.org] On Behalf Of Paul Nikolich
> Sent: Wednesday, November 22, 2006 4:09 PM
> To: STDS-802-SEC@listserv.ieee.org
> Subject: [802SEC] +++EC Email ballot (closes no later than
> 29NOV2006)+++ Motion to foward the P802.16m PAR to NesCom
>
> Dear EC Members,
>
> After careful consideration of the events at the close of the
> EC meeting with the Recording Secretary, I have determined
> the proper procedural thing to do is finish the business that
> was interrupted. We shall do that by EC email ballot. The
> motion is defined below, it opens 22Nov2006 and closes
> 29Nov2006. I remind you that motion 'move the previous
> question' (Grow/O'Hara) passed 12/1 at the time of
> adjourment. Hence, we should conform to the process and I
> request that after careful consideration, you simply cast
> your vote on this motion before the closing time without debate.
>
> Motion: moved by Roger Marks, seconded by Tony Jeffree:
>
> "To forward the P802.16m PAR (IEEE 802.16-06/054r4), as
> supported by the the Five Criteria (IEEE 802.16-06/055r3), to
> NesCom, for consideration at its meeting of 5DEC2006 if at
> all possible."
>
> The document IEEE 802.16-06/054r4:
> http://ieee802.org/16/docs/06/80216-06_054r4.pdf represents
> the PAR as amended by the motion of Mr. Greenspan that
> carried 14/1/1. The Five Criteria statement IEEE
> 802.16-06/055r3:
> http://ieee802.org/16/docs/06/80216-06_055r3.pdf is the same
> document considered in the motions of 17 November.
>
> Once again I apologize for the way I conducted the close of
> the closing EC meeting. Regardless, I am confident we can
> work this item through to its proper conclusion.
>
> Finally...Happy Thanksgiving everyone.
>
> Regards,
>
> --Paul
>
> ----------
> 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.