Potential CAG/Sponsor Conflicts: an 802 perspective

1
Potential CAG/Sponsor Conflictsan 802
perspective

• The IEEE SA endorses many projects
• imperative principles of the SA due process,
  openness, consensus, balance and right of appeal
• When there is a conflict how is it resolved?
• How is a conflict identified?
• Conflicting projects cause problems
• For the industry
• For the SA
• Current SA-CAG processes potentially enable
  conflicts
• Therefore the process requires modification
• 2.5Gbps PHY a case study

2
2.5Gpbs Case Study

• 802.3 WG rejected a 2.5Gbps twisted pair PHY
  project
• WG Motion authorizing Study Group FAILED (Nov.
  2003)
• Approve 17, Disapprove 31, Abstain 17
• WG represents a substantial fraction of the
  industry
• 92 members signed in representing 67 entities (a
  large fraction of industry) during above vote
• 802.3 WG approved a 10GBASE-T twisted pair PHY
• WG Motion authorizing Study Group PASSED (Nov.
  2002)
• 80 Approve, 0 Disapprove, 5 Abstain
• The WG made a decision (industry consensus)
• Focus on 10G, do not work on 2.5G
• This is the VALUE the SA brings to the industry
• CONSENSUS decisions by an BALANCED, OPEN body
• Minimize options, focused RD, increase market
  size, minimize cost
• Results in substantial benefit for the producers
  and consumers

3
2.5 Gbps Case Study

• But.a CAG proposal was made
• A small subset of the industry (12 entities?)
  brought the 2.5Gpbs project to the CAG for
  consideration
• CAG comprised of 7 members
• SA rules allow the CAG to approve a project that
  has been rejected by Sponsors with relevant
  expertise. PROBLEM!!!!!
• The CAG should not authorize a project that has
  been disapproved by a sponsor with relevant
  expertise.
• The current CAG process can undermine the Sponsor
  process
• This needs to be resolved
• The CAG does not represent a sufficiently broad
  portion of any industry

4
Recommendation

• The 802 EC has carefully considered this
  situation, especially since it has recently been
  through the 2.5Gbps project proposal both within
  802.3 and via discussions with the CAG
• The 802 EC unanimously agreed the CAG process
  requires revision to eliminate this potential
  conflict.

5
802 EC Motion

• Moved Bob Grow, Second Tony Jeffree
• The IEEE 802 LAN/MAN standards committee (LMSC)
  requests the IEEE-SA Board of Governors take
  action to protect the value of IEEE-SA as a
  standards development organization by requiring
  proper IEEE-SA, Corporate Advisory Group (CAG)
  and working group procedures that
• 1. allow CAG standards sponsorship for truly new
  standards activities that are outside the scope
  of existing working groups
• 2. disallow CAG standards sponsorship for new
  standards that are effectively amendments to
  existing standards or projects of active working
  groups
• 3. recognize that working groups must make
  selections between technical alternatives, and
  prevent the CAG from becoming a mechanism that
  can be used to bypass the decision making process
  of working groups by sponsoring competing
  projects to standards and projects of those
  working groups
• 4. discriminate between the case of disinterest
  in a proposed standards project (no position
  taken) by an established working group and the
  case of an established working group taking the
  position that a proposed standards project is
  within its area of work and that the proposed
  project should not be approved.
• RESULT Approved 13 Approve, 0 Disapprove, 0
  Abstain 0 Did Not VoteFebruary 25, 2004

6
802 EC Motion

• 1. allow CAG standards sponsorship for
• truly new standards activities that are outside
  the scope of existing working groups

7
802 EC Motion

• 2. disallow CAG standards sponsorship for
• new standards that are effectively amendments to
  existing standards or projects of active working
  groups

8
802 EC Motion

• 3. recognize that
• working groups must make selections between
  technical alternatives, and
• prevent the CAG from becoming a mechanism that
  can be used to bypass the decision making process
  of working groups
• by sponsoring competing projects to standards and
  projects of those working groups

9
802 EC Motion

• 4. discriminate between
• the case of disinterest in a proposed standards
  project (no position taken) by an established
  working group and
• the case of an established working group taking
  the position that a proposed standards project is
  within its area of work and that the proposed
  project should not be approved.

10
IEEE 802 ORGANIZATION
SPONSOR EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE (SEC)
CHAIR Paul Nikolich
WORKING GROUP/TAG CHAIRS
APPOINTED OFFICERS
2nd VICE CHAIR Mat Sherman
1st VICE CHAIR Geoff Thompson
802.3 CSMA/CD Bob Grow
802.11 WLAN Stuart J. Kerry
802.1 BRIDGING/ARCH Tony Jeffree
RECORDING SECY Bob OHara
EXECUTIVE SECY Buzz Rigsbee
802.15 WPAN Bob Heile
802.16 BWA Roger Marks
802.17 ResPackRing Mike Takefman
TREASURER BillQuackenbush
802.18 TAG Radio Regulatory Carl Stevenson
802.20MBWA Jerry Upton
802.19 TAG Coexistance S Shelhammernon-voting
802.21Handoff DJ Johnston non-voting