[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: stds-802-16: Tentative Agenda for Session #6 (6-9 March 2000)

Demos is right - the "special" meeting sounds to me like it has problems.
Forgive the speech, but:

Convergence is OK, provided every interested party is aware of, and invited
to, the deliberations.  The problem occurs when a subset meets privately,
because it may create the appearance of intent to gang up to disadvantage a

Some anti-trust violations are called "per sec violations".  In these, your
intentions are not admissible evidence.  "If the meeting took place, the
violation occurred".  For a better description, see an attorney (I'm but a
simple engineer!).

This is pretty standard stuff in standards activities, but needs to be

Any other views?

Mike Patriarche
Patriarche & Associates Pacific, Inc.

----- Original Message -----
From: Durand, Roger <rdurand@cabletron.com>
To: 'Kostas, Demos' <dkostas@adaptivebroadband.com>; 'Roger B. Marks'
<marks@boulder.nist.gov>; <stds-802-16@ieee.org>
Sent: Saturday, February 05, 2000 12:12 PM
Subject: RE: stds-802-16: Tentative Agenda for Session #6 (6-9 March 2000)

> Demos
> Ouch, I need to chime in right away here...
> Caution is advised regarding your wording, of legal liability in
> regards to constraint of trade. Be sure of your facts. I am not familiar
> with this upcoming meeting, but I am not sure it is a conspiracy in
> constraint of trade...
> A more likely purpose is convergence, it is normal for participants
> to merge proposals/contributions. This is not constraint of trade, rather
> is convergence. Indeed this process is encouraged with the intent of
> producing the best possible standard, best of breed. Without convergence,
> there any real progress? This convergence in turn should generate either
> contributions or enhance the evolution of previous contributions. These
> contributions in turn drive the standards process. Indeed convergence, in
> itself, usually (but not always) involves multiple parties with redundant
> capability which is contrary to constraint of trade by promoting
> competition. Even those who find themselves outside the convergence
> with their specific contributions may still compete by building to the
> standard invoking the standards licensing policy, if necessary. A good
> standard, is based on no key IP.
> Or, perhaps it may be a discussion on the tradeoffs to merge the
> future sub 11 GHz with the present 802.16.1 This was openly talked about
> the last interim. Perhaps, I should reiterate... A point was presented as
> the economic advantages of producing one standard instead of two. That a
> perception exists by some members that the sub 11 GHz band has an economic
> deployment advantage which will drive significant quantities and that this
> should be leveraged to make the 802.16.1 more economically feasible (not
> other way around). This is crystal balling an unknown future which is
> largely dependant on the serious intent of the different spectrum holders
> systems providers to deploy (beyond a standards bodies purview). Further
> markets these two are trying to address may be significantly different.
> Others point out that the 802.16.1 is further ahead (why wait)?
> I sincerely do not believe any decisions can be made next week,
> maybe a contribution/recommendation may come from this to be taken to the
> 802.16 body. Which, may generate a round of votes...
> The selection/decision process itself must take place in a
> previously announced and publicly scheduled meeting for all to attend. As
> long as no 802.16 meeting is called to order next week, there is no
> exclusion. If such an unannounced, non -public meeting was called to
> you would have grounds for a "protest" to the executive committee and I
> would join you.
> Making such a vague statement might be construed as an allegation.
> Such an allegation would require proof. Just because people are meeting
> somewhere to discuss the developments around 802.16 is not, in itself,
> proof.  Four people meeting on a street (or anywhere) is not a gang, eight
> people do not make a riot.
> Sincerely
> Roger Durand
> Cabletron Systems
> CTO Staff, Systems Architect
> Tel#(603)337-5170
> rdurand@cabletron.com
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Kostas, Demos [mailto:dkostas@adaptivebroadband.com]
> Sent: Friday, February 04, 2000 11:45 PM
> To: 'Roger B. Marks'; stds-802-16@ieee.org
> Subject: RE: stds-802-16: Tentative Agenda for Session #6 (6-9 March
> 2000)
> I just accidentally found out that a day and a half meeting has been
> scheduled by some members of the IEEE 802.16 next week in Phoenix to
> progress the merging of the current BWA proposals to the IEEE 802.16.
> Considering that not all members/participants of the IEEE 802.16 have been
> informed or are invited to this meeting,( and as I was told that some of
> invitees are not proposers of the existing 802.16 BWA proposals), could
> participants in such selective meetings, and/or the IEEE, and/or IEEE
> 802.16(that has encouraged such informal process for facilitating the
> merging the current IEEE802.16 BWA proposals), be legally liable of being
> accused of meeting to reach decisions outside an open forum so as to
> the cards" on what gets approved in the formal IEEE 802.16 meetings, and
> thus constrain trade by excluding other proposals?
> Dr. Demosthenes J. Kostas
> Director, Industry Standards
> Adaptive Broadband Corporation
> 3314 Dartmouth Ave
> Dallas, TX 75205  USA
> tel: 214 520 8411
> fax: 214 520 9802
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Roger B. Marks [mailto:marks@boulder.nist.gov]
> Sent: Friday, February 04, 2000 12:28 AM
> To: stds-802-16@ieee.org
> Subject: Re: stds-802-16: Tentative Agenda for Session #6 (6-9 March
> 2000)
> >Roger,
> >
> >Now that the number of proposals for 802.16.1 have thinned out to
> >just two, is it not possible to avoid conflict of sub 10 GHz study
> >group meetings with other meetings particularly the 802.16 meetings
> >(PHY and MAC)? My company is interested in sub 10 GHz as well as
> >802.16.1 group and I suspect many members form other companies are.
> >I would appreciate if you could rearrange the schedule to allow all
> >interested parties to attend the 802.16.1 (PHY and MAC) as well as
> >sub 10 GHz meetings.
> >
> >Chet
> Chet,
> I sympathize with your concern. It certainly comes into play as we
> firm up the agendas.
> On the other hand, there is a lot of work ahead for both projects.
> The Study Group needs to respond to comments on the PAR; this can,
> and should, turn out to be an in-depth discussion. It may take quite
> a long time. The revised PAR is due at 5 pm on Wednesday. Afterwards,
> as long as it has made solid plans for how to proceed (and planned
> for various possible outcomes of the PAR approval vote by the 802
> ExCom), the Group might reasonably adjourn for the week on Wednesday.
> (On the other hand, it could also use Thursday morning to begin
> discussions on its Functional Requirements).
> If we run the 802.16.1 PHY and MAC discussions in serial rather than
> in parallel (and I think this is a good idea, except possibly for the
> discussions on performance modeling), we don't have much time to
> waste. Even with two proposals, (or even with only one!) we still
> have a long way to go before we have a standard. While the
> lower-frequency work is vital, we cannot allow it to delay progress
> on our existing projects (both .1 and .2). If it turns out that we
> don't really need the full two and a half days of session time, then
> we might be able to cut back. But first we need to take a close look
> at what's on the agenda.
> Another way to potentially reduce the overlap is to make use of
> Monday and Tuesday evening. I've held that in reserve.
> While we have some flexibility, the agenda will require some tough
> choices. When the Working Group considers opening up new projects, it
> has to do so with a realistic view of the impact of those projects on
> existing work. Fortunately, our new Study Group has attracted new
> people; this gives us the power to get more things done in parallel
> while using the Working Group structure to keep all of our projects
> complementary to each other.
> I encourage the Task Groups and the Study Group to detail their work
> for the week and let us know what it adds up to. I also encourage
> you, and everyone else, to come up with a specific agenda proposal
> that accounts for all of the work that needs to get done.
> Regards,
> Roger