RE: [802SEC] +++ SEC EMAIL BALLOT +++ Motion: 802.16a to Sponsor Ballot
Colleagues, As is usually the case, I find Roger's refutations very well
thought out and quite persuasive, as we try to find our narrow way between
the rules, the customs and traditions of 802, and the expediencies of
producing timely standards that don't fall too far behind the wake of the
market surge to benefit from it. I believe there is still time to
reconsider our action before we reject this otherwise fine piece of work
from going to ballot on the basis of some rather fine points of etiquette
and custom. I did think Roger's ballot summary package was one of the most
readable and well presented I've seen, and although I agree that a couple of
the comment responses were a bit too brief to be truly responsive, I think
Roger is now well aware that we will hold him to a higher standard next time
around. I would hate to see us dampen the enthusiasms of one of our most
active working groups on some rather bureaucratic grounds. I think a
warning here would be sufficient.
Anyone else care to share on this matter ???
Dr. Everett O. (Buzz) Rigsbee
PO Box 3707, M/S: 7M-FM
Seattle, WA 98124-2207
Ph: (425) 865-2443
Fx: (425) 865-6721
From: Roger B. Marks [mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org]
Sent: Tuesday, April 09, 2002 4:19 PM
Subject: Re: [802SEC] +++ SEC EMAIL BALLOT +++ Motion: 802.16a to Sponsor
I understand Stuart's position in voting Disapprove. 802.11, of
course, has the right to oppose sending a draft to Sponsor Ballot.
However, I'd like to put the 802.11 discussion into perspective.
While much of 802.16a concerns licensed bands, license-exempt bands
are also included. 802.16 is concerned about license-exempt
coexistence and remains willing to address the issues. Please note:
*The section of the 802.11 minutes that Stuart posted makes it clear
that this was not a technical discussion. Perhaps the strongest
statement in favor of the directed position was that "they should
have assured us [coexistence issues] were addressed beforehand." I
agree that we could have made a more vigorous effort to review our
coexistence with 802.11 in advance. However, it is neither a rule nor
a tradition that WGs review coexistence plans with other WGs in
advance of Sponsor Ballot. We were open to discussion on the issue,
and our drafts are available using the 802.11 password. We informed
other WGs in advance of our intent and assumed that they would take
the initiative to raise their concerns in advance.
*Our primary coexistence mechanism is Dynamic Frequency Selection
(DFS). Our 802.11 liaison also Chairs 802.11h, which is developing
802.11's DFS mechanism. He worked on our DFS techniques and assured
us that they were coordinated and compatible with 802.11h. This
discussion also took place in January and led to an 802 position
statement on DFS that was supported by all three WGs.
*Our DFS mechanism was much less clearly specified in Draft 2, to
which 802.11 had access, than in Draft 3, which we developed in St.
*The motion on the floor shows that, during WG Letter Ballot, we
rejected one comment (0221) because it would weaken license-exempt
*We hope to address any coexistence concerns, including additional
coexistence mechanisms, during Sponsor Ballot. Several 802.11 and
802.15 members have enrolled in the Sponsor Ballot Group. Also, Paul
followed my recommendation to add the 802.11 and 802.15 chairs to the
If the SEC decides that 802.16a can't go to Sponsor Ballot until
802.11 accepts its licensed-band coexistence content, then we will
have an extremely long delay in the progress of 802.16a. This "Just
Say No, Without Comments" policy and would deal a significant blow to
cooperation between Working Groups and would be an unfortunate turn
>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
>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
>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
>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
>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.email@example.com>@majordomo.ieee.org
>on 04/05/2002 06:06:17
>Please respond to <firstname.lastname@example.org>
>Sent by: email@example.com
>To: "'IEEE802'" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
>cc: (bcc: Stuart Kerry/SVL/SC/PHILIPS)
>Subject: [802SEC] +++ SEC EMAIL BALLOT +++ Motion: 802.16a to
>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:email@example.com]
>Sent: Thursday, April 04, 2002 7:47 PM
>Cc: firstname.lastname@example.org; email@example.com
>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%)
> Disapprove 5
> Abstain 18
> 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
> Comments 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
> draft (P802.16a/D3):
> (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.