RE: [802SEC] +++Forward P802.16/D4-2001 for Sponsor Ballot NOTE SHORT RESPONSE TIME NEEDED.
From: Jim Carlo [mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org]
Sent: Saturday, August 04, 2001 3:56 PM
Subject: [802SEC] +++Forward P802.16/D4-2001 for Sponsor Ballot NOTE
SHORT RESPONSE TIME NEEDED.
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:email@example.com>
Chair, IEEE 802.16 WG on Broadband Wireless Access <http://ieee802.org/16>
phone: +1 303 497 3037 fax: +1 303 497 7828