1. Draft 03 Feb 26, 2004 7PM EST1 Potential CAG/Sponsor Conflicts: an 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. Draft 03 Feb 26, 2004 7PM EST2 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 R&D, increase market size, minimize cost Results in substantial benefit for the producers and consumers

3. Draft 03 Feb 26, 2004 7PM EST3 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. Draft 03 Feb 26, 2004 7PM EST4 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. Draft 03 Feb 26, 2004 7PM EST5 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 Vote February 25, 2004

6. Draft 03 Feb 26, 2004 7PM EST6 802 EC Motion 1. allow CAG standards sponsorship for – truly new standards activities that are outside the scope of existing working groups;

7. Draft 03 Feb 26, 2004 7PM EST7 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. Draft 03 Feb 26, 2004 7PM EST8 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. Draft 03 Feb 26, 2004 7PM EST9 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. Draft 03 Feb 26, 2004 7PM EST10 IEEE 802 ORGANIZATION 802.3 CSMA/CD Bob Grow 802.16 BWA Roger Marks 802.11 WLAN Stuart J. Kerry 802.1 BRIDGING/ARCH Tony Jeffree WORKING GROUP/TAG CHAIRS 1 st VICE CHAIR Geoff Thompson RECORDING SECY Bob OHara TREASURER Bill Quackenbush EXECUTIVE SECY Buzz Rigsbee APPOINTED OFFICERS CHAIR Paul Nikolich SPONSOR EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE (SEC) 802.15 WPAN Bob Heile 802.18 TAG Radio Regulatory Carl Stevenson 802.17 ResPackRing Mike Takefman 802.19 TAG Coexistance S Shelhammer non-voting 802.20 MBWA Jerry Upton 2 nd VICE CHAIR Mat Sherman 802.21 Handoff DJ Johnston non-voting