Message info
To:Pete Resnick From:Peter Stanforth Subject:Re: [paws] Charter update progress Date:Mon, 7 May 2012 17:15:05 -0400

I share your sentiments. A feedback loop is very desirable but I don't think that the implication  is well understood. So the charter should avoid defining what or how it would be provided until we have had chance to get some input and contributions on the issue. 
Peter S.

From: Pete Resnick <>
To: "" <>
Cc: Peter Stanforth <>, "" <>, "" <>
Subject: Re: [paws] Charter update progress


As I have explained, just saying "report spectrum usage" sounds like it may involve a dynamically updating process such that any change in spectrum usage, even if it is post-query, needs to be reported to the database. That is a *much* larger change than was proposed, which is why we had it as "anticipated spectrum usage". I also thought that "intended spectrum usage" was a reasonable compromise. But simply "spectrum usage" is problematic, and there are several folks who do not agree with this change as I have read the list. If you wish to suggest another phrase, that's fine. But I can't go to the IESG with your text.


On 5/3/12 7:30 AM, wrote:

Gabor may have a combined view of the proposals - I still support my initial proposal of April 15th, which was to change the new bullet point 5 from "Report to the white space database anticipated spectrum usage at a suitable granularity" to Report spectrum usage to the white space database at a suitable granularity.







From: Peter Stanforth []
Sent: 03 May 2012 13:24
To: Sago,AJ,Andy,COD R;;
Subject: Re: [paws] Charter update progress


What is the proposal?





There has been no reflector discussion since 24th April UK time. Can we now submit the charter proposal to the IESG, or has that already happened?





Pete Resnick <>
Qualcomm Incorporated - Direct phone: (858)651-4478, Fax: (858)651-1102