doc.: IEEE /1084r00 Submission September 2015 Adrian Stephens, Intel CorporationSlide WG Chair comments to TGah Date: Authors:

doc.: IEEE /1084r00 Submission Abstract This submission is intended to be presented to TGah at the start of their next F2F time-slot to give advice on the conduct of their current business. September 2015 Adrian Stephens, Intel CorporationSlide 2

doc.: IEEE /1084r00 Submission Recent History of TGah Qualcomm has asserted that it owns essential IP in TGah [R1]. The letter was sent to PatCom on , and an update on The WG Chair asked Qualcomm to provide an LoA related to TGah on 3 occasions ( , , ). No letter of assurance (LoA) from Qualcomm related to TGah has (at the time of writing) been accepted by IEEE-SA. TGah asked IEEE-SA for advice on how to proceed, and IEEE-SA provided a response [R2]. There are a small number of comments related to IP for which a resolution has not been agreed. TGah is currently “near the end” of working group letter ballot. –95 % approval (255 Y, 11 N, 17 A, 2 Invalid) on the question “Should P802.11ah D5.0 proceed to sponsor ballot” TGah made no visible progress towards resolving these comments in the July 2015 session. Qualcomm sent a letter to PatCom [R4] indicating that the cited claimed essential IP was covered by an existing LoA. September 2015 Adrian Stephens, Intel CorporationSlide 3

doc.: IEEE /1084r00 Submission What are the options? Given TGah has 95% approval, can’t we just go ahead? –No. There are two steps that need 75% approval: resolution of the comments; and approval of a report to the EC. We need consensus (defined as 75% support) or the project cannot proceed. Do these particular comments need to be resolved? –Yes. All comments must be resolved (i.e., a resolution approved) and then circulated in a re-circulation ballot. Does TGah need to write the resolutions? –Well, the WG could, as a group, approve resolutions to the comments either in plenary session, or by an electronic ballot. But that is really “playing games” with process. We can assume those with an informed opinion are in TGah, so that is where the decision should be made. This does not limit the ability of a WG member to bring an individual motion in the WG on this topic. Whether the WG chooses to consider such a motion would be determined during approval of the WG agenda. September 2015 Adrian Stephens, Intel CorporationSlide 4

doc.: IEEE /1084r00 Submission What are the options – 2 What might happen if we can’t reach consensus in TGah? –Eventually the PAR will expire (Dec 2016). At that point the project is cancelled with immediate effect. –Delaying the project has an editorial impact and might have a technical impact on subsequent projects. –The group could choose to rescind the PAR. This requires a 75% vote (this requirement comes from the OM). Can we ask IEEE-SA for more advice? –We have already asked for advice. All IEEE-SA can do it point to and clarify its rules. It cannot offer other advice or bind what its committees will decide at some future time. September 2015 Adrian Stephens, Intel CorporationSlide 5

doc.: IEEE /1084r00 Submission How do we generally resolve conflict? “Agree on a compromise” –The principals of the two sides agree it is in their best interests to find a mutually acceptable resolution. –They sit down and work out their differences in private and then bring a consensus proposal for consideration by the TG. Rooms might be available for such “caucus” activities as a meeting, but no guarantees. “Show of strength” –The two sides engage in debate with the hope of convincing those “in the middle ground”. The two sides build voting strength. WG attendance and voter numbers increase. –This is a slow process over multiple WG sessions. –Experience tells me that creating “losers” is bad for future progress. September 2015 Adrian Stephens, Intel CorporationSlide 6

doc.: IEEE /1084r00 Submission Process in TGah A member of the WG executive will sit on the top table to advise the TG chair during any slot in which resolution of these comments is on the agenda. –Role is advisory. That person will not participate in debate. Members are reminded to adhere to the IEEE-SA patent policy. Some relevant points from the FAQ are shown in [R3]. Members are reminded to address the specific issues raised in the comments in debate. If debate looks like it might become “heated”, the chair will enforce strict rules of etiquette for debate (determining who has the floor, how many times people can talk). September 2015 Adrian Stephens, Intel CorporationSlide 7

doc.: IEEE /1084r00 Submission References [R1] “Communication from PatCom Re: ah” – communication-from-patcom-re ah.pdfhttps://mentor.ieee.org/802.11/dcn/15/ communication-from-patcom-re ah.pdf [R2] “Communication from SASB Re: ah” – communication-from-sasb-re ah.dochttps://mentor.ieee.org/802.11/dcn/15/ communication-from-sasb-re ah.doc [R3] “Answers to some possible IP questions” – answers-to-some-possible-ip-questions.dochttps://mentor.ieee.org/802.11/dcn/15/ answers-to-some-possible-ip-questions.doc [R4] “Communication to PatCom Re: ah” - communication-to-patcom-related-to ah.pdf September 2015 Adrian Stephens, Intel CorporationSlide 8