Re: [802SEC] IEEE-SA CAG considering sponsoring competingstandards to IEEE 802
It seems to me that, with this CAG sponsorship process, the IEEE-SA
is once again trying to find a way to "monetize" the value in its
reputation by trading it off for revenue. It sounds to me like this
process is well-designed to achieve this goal.
Let me see if I understand the process correctly. I'd like to
hypothesize a situation just slightly different from yours:
*802.X is considering a PAR for a faster PHY. All options on how to
achieve it are open.
*Company Y goes to the CAG for a PAR to make a faster 802.X PHY,
specifying Company Y's technology.
*The CAG sends 802 its PAR for review.
*802.X can choose only one of these two options:
(a) Pass the PAR back to the CAG to create the standard.
(b) Adopt the PAR, accepting its narrow nature and entity-only balloting.
As as understand what you've said, 802.X has no other options. Do I
have this right? If so, then I think the CAG sponsorship process
could very quickly spell the doom of 802. There is going to be a
strong incentive for companies to play this game.
If I have this right, then I suggest a stronger statement.
At 13:05 +0000 04/02/12, Tony Jeffree wrote:
>I share your concerns.
>I would be happy to second your motion when you are ready to make it.
>At 02:36 12/02/2004, Grow, Bob wrote:
>>Some recent activities on Ethernet have raised concerns again about
>>the IEEE-SA competing against itself by spawning competing
>>standards activities through different organizations. Many of you
>>will remember when an ISTO affiliated consortium was formed that
>>IEEE 802.16 perceived as direct but non-interoperable competition
>>to IEEE 802.16. This time, an Ethernet related activity has been
>>discussed as an IEEE-SA Corporate Advisory Group (CAG) sponsored
>>standards development project. Please note that at this time,
>>nothing formal has happened, but initial discussions raise some
>>more general questions in the prevue of the Executive Committee.
>>As background, I provide my understanding of the relevant parts of
>>CAG operation from "Operating Procedures for The Corporate Advisory
>>Group as a Standards Development Sponsor", “Maximizing Your IEEE-SA
>>Corporate Membership” and discussions with CAG leadership and IEEE
>>1. The "CAG is a committee of the IEEE-SA Board of Governors
>>(BoG), constituted to provide operational and strategic planning
>>advice on matters affecting the interests of the IEEE-SA corporate
>>and organizational members." In some ways, the CAG is similar to
>>the LMSC EC in that it is a supervisory body representing its
>>members. The CAG represents IEEE-SA Corporate Members, only a
>>subset of which have representatives with seats on the CAG.
>>2. The CAG has 10 seats with 6 currently filled. There are 46
>>entities listed as IEEE-SA Corporate Members on the web site (last
>>modified September 2003).
>>3. The CAG can function as a sponsor for IEEE standards projects
>>(as can other societies within IEEE, like our sponsor the IEEE
>>4. Before sponsoring a standards development project, the CAG
>>must give existing societies 45 days to consider being the sponsor
>>for the proposed project. If the sponsor takes on the project,
>>balloting must be as entities.
>>5. At least three IEEE-SA Corporate Members must support doing a
>>standards project, and the CAG must approve a PAR before forwarding
>>to NesCom if it is to be the sponsor.
>>6. The CAG is not required to get a supporting vote of the
>>corporate membership, nor even solicit comment from the corporate
>>membership about a proposed project. The support by the requisite
>>number of entity members is assumed to be sufficient indication of
>>Recent activities in and outside 802.3 will highlight why I feel
>>current CAG policies are an important issue for the LMSC Executive
>>Committee to consider. In general, my concern is that the current
>>procedures of the CAG can be used to undermine the decision making
>>authority of established working groups, and destroy industry
>>respect for and support of IEEE-SA as a standards development
>>Because the EC’s responsibility is mostly to process, I present the
>>following as background information so that you can easily envision
>>similar situations within your working groups. Hopefully we can
>>deal with this particular proposal as a case study, and independent
>>of the technical merits and liabilities of the proposed work, focus
>>on the more general strategic implications.
>>1. In July 2003, a proposal was made to the 10GBASE-T study
>>group for multi-rate operation (2.5, 5 and 10 Gb/s). This was
>>discussed on its technical merits as well as within the context of
>>the Five Criteria. After three hours of discussion, the SG
>>declined to include an objective for multi-rate operation. The
>>motions to change criteria text to allow multi-rate operation
>>generated 23% or less support, and the individual votes on each of
>>the Five Criteria passed by 78% or more.
>>2. Also in July 2003 at the closing 802.3 plenary meeting, the
>>proponents brought the issue directly to the floor during the study
>>group report. After more than an hour of discussion, and it being
>>a late hour, no motion was made on objectives for the emerging
>>P802.3an (10GBASE-T) PAR, and a motion to forward the PAR and
>>criteria failed Y: 30, N: 16, A: 15.
>>3. In November, efforts to promote 2.5 Gb/s were separate from
>>the proposed 10GBASE-T project. Motions to approve and forward the
>>10GBASE-T Five Criteria and PAR passed with little or no opposition.
>>4. Also in November, proponents of 2.5 Gb/s Ethernet held a Call
>>for Interest. It was one of three CFIs held in sequence Tuesday
>>evening. Attendance was about 175 and seemed fairly consistent for
>>all of the CFIs. Two of the CFIs were successful in generating
>>support for formation of a study group, but the 2.5 Gb/s CFI was
>>not. The straw poll question presented at the CFI was:
>>Should IEEE 802.3 form a Study Group to develop a project proposal
>>for 2.5 Gbps Ethernet?
>>Attendees: Y: 53, N: 64, A: 39
>>802.3 Voters: Y: 20, N: 29, A: 21
>>5. Also in November, the proponents brought essentially the same
>>question before the 802.3 closing plenary.
>>Motion: 802.3 WG authorizes the formation of 2.5Gbps Study Group
>>Y: 17, N: 31, A: 17 Motion Failed
>>6. In January 2004, Mr. Nikolich received a request for
>>cooperation on a 2.5 Gb/s project from the Chair of the IEEE-SA
>>CAG, initiating discussions among CAG leadership, IEEE 802/802.3
>>leaders and IEEE Staff. Mr. Nikolich gave his personal opinion to
>>the Chair of the CAG that executing this project through
>>sponsorship by the CAG "was not advisable due to conflict with the
>>802.3 position", but he also requested more information about the
>>CAG and corporate IEEE-SA participation before offering any formal
>>response to the request and requested that 802 and 802.3 leadership
>>be involved in any discussion by the CAG on this potential project.
>>To date, that request has been honored.
>>1. Following this communication, a significant amount of
>>misinformation began to circulate within the Ethernet community,
>>including misrepresentations of Mr. Nikolich’s position on the
>>proposal, the status of the proposal with the CAG, etc.
>>2. Consequently, a number of email, telephone and conference
>>calls resulted in IEEE staff arranging a 27 January call with:
>>IEEE 802 – 1st Vice Chair, 802.3 Chair, 802.3 Vice Chair, 10GBASE-T Chair
>>CAG – Chair and Vice Chair
>>President of the IEEE-SA
>>In addition to the above information about CAG operation, the
>>conference call indicated:
>>a) The CAG leadership was committed to support this proposed project.
>>b) A PAR if proposed would only require approval by the CAG to
>>forward to NesCom.
>>e) IEEE 802 participants felt the absence of communication with
>>the corporate membership about the advisability of sponsoring a
>>project lessens the value proposition for becoming a corporate
>>member. “Why should I recommend my company join IEEE-SA when it
>>would not be guaranteed any mechanism for disapproving proposed new
>>f) It was expected that a 2.5 Gb/s project would be submitted to
>>NesCom for March consideration. [Though it is believed that this
>>will not happen.]
>>g) The CAG leadership would allow the 45-day period for other
>>societies to respond to overlap with the NesCom submittal.
>>The similarities of this to IEEE 802.16’s problems with ISTO are
>>obvious to those that were involved. With ISTO, we argued about
>>whether it was appropriate to call their output IEEE standards or
>>specifications. The major difference here is that standard versus
>>specification isn’t a question with a CAG sponsored project. A CAG
>>sponsored project will be an “IEEE Std xxx” document.
>>The ability of the CAG to sponsor projects is a worthwhile activity
>>for IEEE-SA to support. Without proper constraint though, it can
>>be used to undermine the decisions of 802 and other established
>>working groups. As an example, most of our groups have lively
>>discussions about encoding/modulation techniques. What if one of
>>our WGs makes a decision and the proponents of a losing proposal
>>recognize they only need two entity “friends” to go get their own
>>standard through the CAG. Consider what this particular case would
>>mean as a precedent to IEEE Std 802.11, IEEE Std 802.15, IEEE Std
>>802.16, etc. What if the losing side on a bridging or security
>>proposal didn’t like the 802.1 decision.
>>I would like the EC to consider a position statement to the BoG on
>>additional considerations for CAG sponsored standards projects. I
>>believe that a motion should state that:
>>The IEEE LAN/MAN Standards Committee (LMSC) is supportive of
>>Corporate Advisory Group (CAG) standards activities where existing
>>sponsors are disinterested in a proposed activity. The LMSC is
>>strongly opposed to the CAG sponsoring projects where there is
>>strong interest in the proposed activity. The LMSC disagrees with
>>any presumption that rejecting a proposed standards activity is
>>equivalent to disinterest in the activity. CAG and IEEE-SA process
>>must consider an established working group’s position that a
>>particular standards project is within its area of work and it that
>>it should not be approved. The LMSC requests that CAG P&P be
>>modified to support this method of operation.
>>To have a position ready for the BOG meeting on February 25-27, I
>>will be making a motion similar to that above this week. In the
>>meantime, any wordsmithing suggestions will be appreciated.
>>Thank you for your attention to this lengthy but important message.