Re: [802SEC] +++Forward P802.16/D4-2001 for Sponsor Ballot NOTE SHORT RESPONSE TIME NEEDED.
At 17:56 04/08/2001 -0500, Jim Carlo wrote:
>SEC OFFICIAL EMAIL BALLOT 802.0/4Aug2001
>Issue Date: 4Aug2001Closing Date: 10AugApri2001 (BY 11:00am DALLAS TIME)
>Moved By: Roger Marks Seconded By: Bob O'Hara
>Move: Forward P802.16/D4-2001 for Sponsor Ballot
>At the SEC July Thursday meeting the SEC gave conditional approval to Roger
>to proceed with forwarding to Sponsor Ballot (If conditional approval
>conditions were met). Because an additional individual submitted a new no
>vote on the same comment, I told Roger we need to take an SEC email ballot.
>NOTE THAT THIS BALLOT CLOSES ON 10AUG AT 11:00AM DALLAS TIME IN ORDER THAT
>SPONSOR BALLOT CAN START ON FRIDAY AND THUS CLOSE AT THE START OF THE 802.16
>INTERIM MEETING. ROGER HAS COMMITTED TO CONTACT PEOPLE AND RESPOND AS NEEDED
>BECAUSE OF THE SHORT TIME PERIOD TO MEET THE WG SCHEDULE.
>I had asked Roger to explain the two new NO votes in email dated 3August.
>The No voter with the comment outside the scope was actually an approve
>voter - so this is done. The explanation for the other NO voter is found in
>Roger's notes below.
>Notes: From Roger Marks
>In July, the 802 SEC granted "Conditional Approval" to forward
>P802.16/D4-2001 to Sponsor Ballot upon completion of Confirmation
>Ballot #3b. The ballot concluded yesterday. The outcome is documented
>in these two reports:
>*IEEE P802.16 Confirmation Ballot #3b Comment Resolution Report
>IEEE 802.16-01/42 <http://ieee802.org/16/docs/01/80216-01_42.pdf>
>Two comments were received in the Confirmation Ballot.
>-One was nonbinding (the vote is Approve). Comment was outside scope;
>it was on a topic not subject to recirc.
>-One was binding (balloter went from Approve to Disapprove). The
>comment was a duplicate of an earlier comment, with no new technical
>content to justify a further recirculation. The comment says that an
>option for narrow-band operation should be included since some
>countries have allocated narrow bands at 10.5 GHz and the standard is
>supposed to cover 10-66 GHz. The resolution basically says that,
>while the standard will work fine down to 10 GHz, it was not designed
>for narrow band operation; for narrow bands at 10.5 GHz, the upcoming
>802.16a standard, which covers 2-11 GHz and assumes narrower
>channels, will be more appropriate. [That's why we defined 802.16a
>from 2-11 GHz instead of 2-10 GHz, allowing an overlap].
>*IEEE P802.16 Confirmation Ballot #3b Voting Report
>IEEE 802.16-01/43 <http://ieee802.org/16/docs/01/80216-01_43.pdf>
>-Approve 76/Disapprove 9 (89.4% Approval)
>-Return ratio 93/124 = 75%
>Following the Confirmation Ballot, Working Group Letter Ballot #3 was
>declared to have concluded successfully. However, 802.16 is not
>authorized to continue to Sponsor Ballot because one of the
>stipulated approval conditions (no new Disapprove votes) was not met.
>Therefore, with Letter Ballot #3 complete but lacking authorization
>to forward it for Sponsor Ballot, I must come back to the SEC for
>such authorization. I would therefore like to place the following
>motion before the SEC for an email ballot: "To forward
>P802.16/D4-2001 for Sponsor Ballot". Bob O'Hara seconds the motion.
>I respectfully request that the email ballot close by noon Eastern
>time on Friday August 10. This would give us an opportunity to launch
>Sponsor Ballot on Friday afternoon and thereby have it close hours
>before our September meeting begins.
>Dr. Roger B. Marks <mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org>
>Chair, IEEE 802.16 WG on Broadband Wireless Access <http://ieee802.org/16>
>phone: +1 303 497 3037 fax: +1 303 497 7828