RE: IEEE 802 Standards Program
I too am disappointed in the response of IEEE. I assume it is too late to
vote on changing the July meeting fee unless Buzz and Dawn exclude July
registration fee information from the March information packet. Following
the July meeting, I project we will have about $250,000 escrowed for making
802 standards more freely available. I am not willing to support continued
escrow of funds beyond July. Consequently, I will recommend to the Exec
next week that registration fees be reduced by half for the November meeting
($125/$150). This will allow us to begin returning the escrowed funds to our
From: Tony Jeffree [mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org]
Sent: Monday, March 05, 2001 2:16 PM
To: Howard Frazier
Cc: email@example.com; IEEE802
Subject: Re: IEEE 802 Standards Program
Well put. I find it very disappointing that we seem to be back to what
seems little different from the original IEEE staff proposal. I would like
to know why the IEEE staff feel that this re-hash of the old scheme stands
any better chance of success.
I find it even more disappointing in the light of the considerable (and
rapidly increasing) annual income that the IEEE receives as a direct
result of the existence of IEEE 802 and its standards (i.e., the OUI
registration income). I get the feeling that we're being made to jump
through too many hoops here. On any reasonable evaluation of the economics
of this situation, I believe the IEEE should have been more than happy to
distribute our standards free of charge, without additional contributions
of any kind. Our offer to "sweeten the pill" by putting our ISO tax money
in the pot was more than generous in the circumstances.
I believe that our continued offer of additional financial support for this
program should be made conditional on the program going ahead immediately,
with or without any additional corporate sponsorship that the staff may be
able to find.
At 12:48 05/03/2001 -0800, Howard Frazier wrote:
>I am pleased that the IEEE-SA BoG considered this issue, and I am pleased
>that action has been taken.
>However, I am very concerned about the program as approved by the BoG. My
>concerns are as follows:
>i. The BoG has essentially approved the program as proposed by the IEEE
>At the last SEC meeting, the SEC decided that a different program should
>ii. I seriously doubt that corporate contributions of any meaningful amount
>will be forthcoming in the current economic climate.
>iii. I am concerned that the BoG appears to have put greater emphasis on
>gaining corporate sponsorship and participation than on making standards
>available to those who need access to them.
>I would have preferred to see a program in which the SEC proposal was
>used as the initial funding mechanism, with the IEEE allowed (and even
>encouraged) to supplement the program through corporate sponsorship, but
>that corporate sponsorship would not be a "gating item" for initiation
>of the project.
>Jim Carlo wrote:
> > IEEE 802 Standards Availability Program - Update
> > 1) I submitted the proposal that IEEE 802 approved at the November-2000
> > meeting to IEEE-SA Staff for evaluation. This proposal is listed below,
> > case you lost it.
> > 2) Because this proposal has possible financial impact on the IEEE-SA
> > Standards Organization, a modified proposal was put forward by Jerry and
> > at the IEEE-SA BOG meeting for approval.
> > 3) After considerable discussion (the IEEE-SA BOG has fiduciary
> > responsibility for IEEE-SA Standards), the IEEE-SA BOG approved a
> > program, which is outlined in two parts:
> > a) In addition to the commitment from IEEE-802 membership to fund this
> > program, there is a need to gain corporate sponsorship. This is due both
> > making sure the program meets financial obligations as well as puts an
> > emphasis on "corporate entity support" for the standards programs as
> well as
> > IEEE-802 individual membership support.
> > b) IEEE-SA Staff wants to initiate a fund raising drive for this
> > starting at the March-2001 meeting. After a certain funding level is
> > achieved, (mainly in the initial contribution), then IEEE-SA is approved
> > the IEEE BOG to go forward with the program, with basically the same
> > agreement as approved by IEEE 802.
> > In my viewpoint, this meets the basic requirements of IEEE 802 program,
> > except for a delay in start-up of IEEE 802 Standards availability. I
> > support this program, and believe the IEEE 802 will benefit - even
> > there will be a delay involved. If the voluntary funding does not
> > materialize, then we will need to renegotiate the program.
> > Jim Carlo(firstname.lastname@example.org) Cellular:1-214-693-1776
> > TI Fellow, Networking Standards at Texas Instruments
> > Vice Chair, IEEE-SA Standards Board
> > Chair, IEEE802 LAN/MAN Standards Committee
> > Name: 802StdsAvailability.doc
> > 802StdsAvailability.doc Type: WINWORD File (application/msword)
> > Encoding: base64