Re: [802SEC] +++ SEC EMAIL BALLOT +++ Motion: 802.16a to Sponsor Ballot
Roger & Paul,
Unfortunately I cannot vote in the affirmative on this motion, as I have a directed position from the body of the 802.11 WG members placed upon me at the closing Plenary of our recent St. Louis Meeting. The exact directed motion reads:
"Motion that the 802.11 WG direct its chair to vote to decline to forward 802.16a to sponsor ballot until 802.16a addresses coexistence in the unlicensed bands."
Moved: Bob O'Hara
Second: Vic Hayes
Vote on the motion: Passed 33 : 16 : 33 - "A simple majority stance"
STRICTLY SPEAKING UNDER THE LMSC OP RULES - PROCEDURE 9 - THIS MOTION REQUIRED 75% TO PASS AS A DIRECTED POSITION.
In the spirit of the motion and understanding the sensitivity of the coexistence issues within my WG I will still vote in the negative on this issue.
You can read the full thread from the WG minutes that stipulates this action below. Also, included is the extract of the LMSC OP rules - Procedure 9.
As a matter of courtesy you kindly added my name to the 802.16a IEEE sponsor ballot which I accepted. Should this motion be approved I will make my personnel comments on the sponsor ballot, as well as reflect the body of the 802.11 WG members feelings and
My vote therefore is DISAPPROVE.
+++++++++ EXTRACT FROM THE MINUTES OF IEEE 802.11 WORKING GROUP, AT THE RECENT ST. LOUIS MEETING +++++++++
1.1.3. 802.16 Sponsor Ballot Request at SEC
220.127.116.11. The chair of 802.16 has combined the unlicensed and licensed specification in 802.16a. This implies coexistence issues.
18.104.22.168. 802.16 will request going to sponsor ballot with this standard. It has been announced on the reflector and in our opening Plenary on Monday
22.214.171.124. The chair suggests that members who are interested in commenting become a member of the Sponsor Pool for 802.16
126.96.36.199.1. This is on the SEC agenda. Does the WG chair wish for the body to provide guidance on how to vote in SEC
188.8.131.52. Motion that the 802.11 WG direct its chair to vote to decline to forward 802.16a to sponsor ballot until 802.16a addresses coexistence in the unlicensed bands.
184.108.40.206.1. Moved Bob O'Hara
220.127.116.11.2. Second Vic Hayes
18.104.22.168.3.1. In favor ? when the PAR for 802.16 TG was proposed, this group voted against approving this PAR.
22.214.171.124.3.2. It was the 802.16.1 document that turned into 802.16a
126.96.36.199.3.3. 802.16.2 addresses coexistence issues, and will encompass 802.16a.
188.8.131.52.3.4. Is there a member of 802.16 here? What is the status of coexistence? Against this motion. There is a coexistence task group working on this. It has selected a DFS capability from 802.11h to facilitate coexistence. Urges responding in the
sponsor ballot pool.
184.108.40.206.3.5. In favor ? we have heard presentations on 802.16 coexistence. They have not addressed coexistence with WLANs. They have worked on coex with 16 technologies.
220.127.116.11.3.6. Concern ? it is good that 802.16 addresses coex, but this could be the camels nose. We should not necessarily insist that the way they address it is approved by 802.11. We shouldn't set the precedent that WGs can veto each others work.
We are not insisting that they address the issue in a manner acceptable to us.
18.104.22.168.3.7. Coexistence is a two way street. We have not been involved in 802.16 coex groups. We also need to think about coex with 802.16. this group is not familiar with the work they are doing.
22.214.171.124.3.8. The chair will discuss this with the .16 chair.
126.96.36.199.3.9. In favor ? they should have assured us they were addressed beforehand.
188.8.131.52.3.10. Against the motion ? voting against this in sponsor ballot is the proper tool. Would not want to tie the chairman's hands unnecessarily.
184.108.40.206.3.11. 802.16a addresses only 5G. They are not interested in 2.4GHz band.
220.127.116.11.3.12. Want to make sure we don't start setting precedents. There is no overarching coex requirement. Don't assume there is such a requirement.
18.104.22.168.4. Call the question ? without objection
22.214.171.124.5. Vote on the motion: Passes 33 : 16 : 33
EXTRACT FROM THE CURRENT LMSC OPERATING RULES - Procedure 9
PROCEDURE FOR ESTABLISHING A DIRECTED POSITION
Members of the LMSC Executive Committee have a responsibility to act in the best interest of
the LMSC as a whole. Working Group Chairs have a responsibility to represent their Working
Group on the Executive Committee. At times these responsibilities are in conflict with each
Decisions of a Working Group may be of such a nature that the Working Group members deem it
necessary to "Direct" the Working Group Chair to vote a specific way on Executive Committee
motions related to a Working Group decision. When directed, through the process described
below, the Working Group Chair shall vote as mandated by the Working Group resolution for
the specified subject on any formal vote(s) in the Executive Committee. It would be anticipated
that the use of a directed (i.e., instructed) vote is an exceptional situation and hence used
infrequently, e.g., critical PAR votes, formation of new Working Groups and Study Groups.
Working Group developed positions are not to be considered as automatic "Directed Positions."
After a Working Group motion has been passed that establishes the Working Group's position, a
separate Directed Position (75% required to pass per 126.96.36.199 Voting) motion is required to make
that Working Group Position a Directed Position. A Directed Position motion applies only to a
specific, bounded, Working Group issue that is to be brought before the Executive Committee.
Directed Position motions may not be combined, nor may any procedure be adopted that
diminishes the extraordinary nature of establishing a "Directed Position."
The Working Group Chair, however, has the freedom to express other views in an attempt to
persuade members of the Executive Committee to consider them, however, such views shall be
identified as distinct from and not the formal Working Group Directed Position. The Working
Group Chair is required to disclose to the Working Group his/her intent to offer a position
contrary to a Directed Position. When presenting a Directed Position to the Executive
Committee, the Working Group Chair is obligated to present and support the Working Group's
Directed Position Motion with voting results, along with pros and cons behind the motion.
"Paul Nikolich" <Paul.firstname.lastname@example.org>@majordomo.ieee.org on 04/05/2002 06:06:17
Please respond to <email@example.com>
Sent by: firstname.lastname@example.org
To: "'IEEE802'" <email@example.com>
cc: (bcc: Stuart Kerry/SVL/SC/PHILIPS)
Subject: [802SEC] +++ SEC EMAIL BALLOT +++ Motion: 802.16a to Sponsor Ballot
This is an SEC email ballot on making a determination on the below SEC
motion to forward IEEEE P802.16a/d2 to LMSC Sponsor Ballot, moved by Roger
Marks, seconded by Bob Heile.
The email ballot opens on Friday April 5 9AM EST and closes Friday April 12
Please direct your responses to the SEC reflector.
From: Roger B. Marks [mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org]
Sent: Thursday, April 04, 2002 7:47 PM
Cc: email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org
Subject: Motion: 802.16a to Sponsor Ballot
I would like to make the following IEEE 802 LMSC Motion:
"To forward IEEE P802.16a/D3 to LMSC Sponsor Ballot"
Motion by: Roger Marks
Seconded by: Robert Heile
Full backup material, including details of all 12 Disapprove comments:
*IEEE 802.16 Letter Ballot #4 (including Recirc #4a and Confirm #4b)
"To forward IEEE P802.16a for IEEE Sponsor Ballot"
Dates: 2001-11-30 to 2002-04-04
Final results: Approve 99 (95%)
Return Ratio 122/178 = 69%
Disapprove Comments 12
Final voting report: http://ieee802.org/16/tga/ballot04/report4b.html
Disapprove comments: http://ieee802.org/16/docs/02/80216-02_21.pdf
(all were recirculated)
Results of final recirculation (Confirmation Ballot #4b):
New Disapproves 0
*IEEE 802.16 Authorizing Motion
802.16 Session #18 Closing Plenary (15 March 2002)
Motion: "To authorize a confirmation ballot of P802.16a/D3 and
forward it for LMSC Sponsor Ballot pending successful confirmation
Motion by: Brian Kiernan, for Task Group a
Seconded by: (none needed)
Confirmation Ballot #4b announcement:
final comment Resolution database:
<http://ieee802.org/16/docs/02/80216-02_01r14.pdf> [PDF format]
<http://ieee802.org/16/docs/02/80216-02_01r14.zip> [database format]
(username and password upon request)
I would like to urge that the ballot be concluded by noon ET on April
12 in order to accommodate our tight schedule situation (namely, so
that we can get the ballot closed before our interim meeting).
Please let me know if I can provide any more information.