Step #19 Recommendation from PBCC Proposers July 2001 Step #19 Recommendation from PBCC Proposers Chris Heegard Ph.D. & Bill Carney Texas Instruments, Inc. Wireless Networking Business 141 Stony Circle, Suite 210 Santa Rosa California 95401 (707) 521-3060 Chris Heegard - TI

Recommendation to the Body July 2001 Recommendation to the Body Reset to Step 18 is in order Ambiguity has prevailed and has tainted the validity of the elimination procedure Fairness is a primary concern Openly discuss, deliberate & adopt an unambiguous Step 19 procedure The majority sets the procedure Including specific ballot construction for all specified rounds Add “None of the above” to all ballots Clearly develop stopping condition Three proposals would be reconsidered Chris Heegard - TI

July 2001 Current Step #19 Rounds of voting will be held that successively eliminate one candidate proposal at a time. On each round of voting, the candidate proposal that receives the least number of votes shall be eliminated from consideration. (In the event of a tie for the lease number of votes, a separate vote shall be held to select which of the candidates receiving the least votes shall be eliminated in the current round. The other candidate(s) shall remain for the next round.) Between rounds of voting, presenters will again have the opportunity to merger proposals. Should the right to merge proposals be exercised, the comparison matrix will be updated accordingly and the presenter(s) will have the opportunity to present the merged proposal. If a merger occurs, the remaining proposals that did not merge will have the opportunity to present the details of their proposal again. The rounds of voting will continue until only one candidate proposal remains and one candidate proposal obtains 75% or more of the vote. Chris Heegard - TI

The Fundamental Problem of Step 19 is Ambiguity July 2001 The Fundamental Problem of Step 19 is Ambiguity Ambiguity has introduced an unintentional flaw in our critical selection process Has always been right in front of us Intrinsic, yet possibly not obvious until now, near the end of our selection procedure Ambiguity begets unfairness Members have made decisions based upon their individual, vastly differing understandings of the meaning of step 19 Wide spread uncertainty Inconsistent, time-varying, interpretations Ballot construction has only exacerbated the problem Leads to ridiculous conclusions Meaningless, undemocratic, ballots A vote with a predetermined outcome is symptomatic of problem Chris Heegard - TI

Our Consistent Understanding of Step #19 July 2001 Our Consistent Understanding of Step #19 No such condition possible that “last one standing” becomes the selected proposal, unless >75% had been attained on a multi-proposal vote or on the final vote for a single remaining proposal There would be one chance (vote) for a single remaining proposal to attain 75% or it, too, would be eliminated Selection procedure could be completed without a single proposal having been selected “How to proceed” would be discussed and decided The majority would set the rules Must continually work towards a consensus solution which the body will support in excess of 75% All of our actions and collaboration with the body have consistently been guided by this perspective Chris Heegard - TI

July 2001 Consequence of Reset Does this indicate failure on the part of the Task Group G? No, doing the right thing is never wrong Will this slow down process? No, the real problem is that while CCK/OFDM currently has majority support there is not consensus support (I.e., >75% --> > 90% support) Has this happened before Yes, and the results were very worthwhile Chris Heegard - TI

IEEE 802.11b The most successful IEEE 802.11 standard July 2001 IEEE 802.11b The most successful IEEE 802.11 standard On the way to being a top IEEE 802 standard The selection process had problems and reset/reorganized selection procedure In May 1998 the down selection was executed 5 proposals --> 1 proposal Alantro was eliminated in the first round with 1 vote Chris Heegard - TI

July 2001 IEEE 802.11b (cont) The “winning proposal” did not survive the reset process Micrilor (now part of Proxim) The 2 “major” proposals Ranked number 2 & 3 in May selection process Harris (now Intersil) & Lucent (now Agere) The following meeting, July 1998, produced the selected proposal A merger of 2&3 with elements of 5 (PBCC as an option) The “reset” was the catalyst that produced compromise Chris Heegard - TI

July 2001 Why are we at this point? Technical Standards are customarily the result of blending the best of multiple ideas together, for the good of the public There has been little-to-none desire or interest in embracing the notion of COMPROMISE by certain members, a condition which is explicitly encouraged and provided for under the selection procedure, at several points in the process This is an unprecedented situation within current 802.11 TGs: .11e, .11i, .11h, ….. All have found some grounds for mergers and/or combinations of the various proposals brought before members Attitude in these other TGs is generally “Debate the technologies thoroughly, but work towards consensus” Attitude by some in TGg seems to be “My way or the highway” Despite numerous attempts for reasonable compromise discussions by PBCC proposers, and others, this outreach has been largely ignored If COMPROMISE had been acknowledged and respected earlier in this process, TGg would not be faced with these challenging questions and delay Chris Heegard - TI

Compromise & Consensus July 2001 Compromise & Consensus com·pro·mise (kom’pro-miz) n. A settlement of differences in which each side makes concessions. The result of such a settlement. con·sen·sus n. Agreement in opinion. Collective opinion. Something that combines qualities or elements of different things, e.g., The new 802.11g standard is a compromise between CCK/OFDM and PBCC. We have an extremely reasonable COMPROMISE for a potential consensus solution to offer the body, after we collectively determine where to go with step 19 Chris Heegard - TI

July 2001 Where Now from Here? In complete fairness to all members, the only reasonable, logical path at this time should be Fairly discuss, deliberate, adopt a completely clear, unambiguous definition of Step 19, including specific ballot construction for all specified rounds Re-execute step 19 with the 3 proposal candidates that had entered it under the original procedure The majority has the right to set the procedure and has the responsibility to be fair to all The body should demand fair compromise leading to consensus Chris Heegard - TI