RE: +++ PAR Approval for 802.11g
I do approve the motion
Lucent Technologies Nederland B.V.
3431 JZ Nieuwegein, the Netherlands
Phone: +31 30 609 7528 (Time Zone UTC +2 in summer time)
FAX: +31 30 609 7556
> From: Jim Carlo[SMTP:firstname.lastname@example.org]
> Sent: 08 September 2000 20:49 PM
> To: IEEE802
> Subject: +++ PAR Approval for 802.11g
> SEC OFFICIAL EMAIL BALLOT 802.0/6Sept2000
> Issue Date: 8Sept2000 Closing Date: 14Sept2000
> Moved By: Stuart Kerry
> Move: Approve PAR for 802.11g per SEC Motion 7/13/2000.
> + SEC Motion (7/13/2000) : To presubmit the PAR for further Higher data
> extension in the 2.4 GHz band to NesCom pending the following actions:
> a) the 802.11 WG performs an email ballot to affirm the forwarding of the
> PAR, (approves+disapproves amounting to at least 50% of the WG voting
> b) the SEC reviews the results of (a) and has an email ballot to forward
> PAR to the standards board for approval.
> 9/0/0 Approved at 8:52
> + IEEE 802.11 conducted a WG ballot with the results as follows:
> Summary of LB #23:
> Total Eligible voters = 100.
> Vote Approve: 69
> Vote Approve with Comment: 1
> Did not respond: 30
> Start of Ballot: 23July2000
> End of Ballot: 2Sept2000
> + Letter Ballot was:
> This Letter Ballot is being issued in compliance with directions from the
> IEEE 802 Executive Committee (ExCom). Although the IEEE 802.11 Working
> Group and the Higher Rate 802.11b Study Group have both approved the PAR
> 5 Criteria unanimously, and the 802.11 WG received absolutely no
> to the PAR by any other 802 Working Group or individual at the July 2000
> meeting, the ExCom has directed another 802.11 WG vote via Letter Ballot
> reaffirm support of the PAR and 5 Criteria. The ExCom has directed the
> 802.11 WG to take this action due to the ExCom's desire to obtain the
> largest vote count possible from the 802.11 WG on approval of the PAR.
> PAR and 5-Criterion are listed below. (The only change is to correct the
> item that the PAR is a supplement to 802.11-1999, since IEEE rules do not
> allow a supplement to a supplement.) Only the PAR (after reformatting)
> be submitted to NesCom.
> + The one Approve with comment was from Dave Bagby, who would prefer to
> mandate backward capability with the IEEE 802.11b standard. Mr. Bagby
> agreed to have his comment discussed at the next WG meeting and have the
> go forward as is.