Verbal claims in the closing plenary of session #62 Ron Murias had claims and used contribution C /0007 to exemplify with text quotes –The exemplifications in C /0007 addressed the text in P802.16a/D7a (Aug. 2008) –The claims shown below were reproduced from some collective memory and may not fully represent what was said in the meeting Claim 1: Resolutions to comments 777 and 786 were not correctly implemented –This issue was enforced by Carl Eklund accusations –Our assessment: Resolutions were properly implemented since Nov. 2008

Comment 777 – see the Group Resolution

Implementation of the resolution to Comment 777 “Non-exclusively assigned” was reverted back to “license-exempt”. The document P80216h_D8delta.pdf shows the changes done on page 2, lines 1 and 5, and page 9, lines 55(deleted) and 60(replaced) – see next slide Other text including “non-exclusively assigned” was deleted from 1, and 15.7, as result of resolutions to other comments – see the next 2 nd slide There is no remaining text including “Non- exclusively assigned” Clause was changed as indicated – see the next third slide

Revert-back “non-exclusively assigned” to “license-exempt”

Deletion of other text including “not-exclusively assigned” The text below was not reverted because it was deleted based on resolutions to other comments

Implementation of the 2 nd part of the resolution to comment 777

Conclusion on comment 777 The Group Resolution was correctly implemented in P802.16h/D8 –Implementation date: November 2008

Comment 786 – see the Group Resolution

Resolution Implemented for Comment 786 Clauses and in P802.16h/D7a were removed:

Conclusion on comment 786 The Group Resolution was correctly implemented in P802.16h/D8 –Implementation date: November 2008

Un-changed text in P802.16h/D8 In contribution C802.16/ is indicated text which was not changed. We do not see any reason for the Editor to make changes to text which is different from: Comment 777: “non-exclusively assigned”; the text which was quoted includes: –Non-exclusive nature, Non-exclusive assignment, –Subject to non-exclusive assignment –Exclusive assignment –Shared band Comment 786: the definitions and 3.138; the other definitions quoted in C /0007 are: –3.155 Exclusive Assignment: A situation whereby a channel is occupied by a single (licensed) known operator. –3.156 Exclusive License: A situation the same as Exclusive Assignment whereby a channel is occupied by a single (licensed) known operator. –3.172 Shared Band: A generic term used to describe bands in which more than one wireless service or application operates in the same geographical location.

Claim 2: P802.16h text is extending the License- exempt scope The “license-exempt frequencies or bands” are defined in IEEE , as follows (our colored highlights). The words “licensed” or “licensing” are used four times: “It is recognized that some administrations require notification of terminal location for certain services in some license-exempt bands, which is a form of licensing. Conversely, it is possible to have uncoordinated usage within a licensed allocation. In these and other similar cases, the pertinent issues for license-exempt usage remain as described in the preceding paragraph. In the context of this standard, the use of the term “license- exempt frequencies” or “license-exempt bands” should be taken to mean the situation where licensing authorities do not coordinate individual assignments of frequency bands to operators, regardless of whether the spectrum in question has a particular regulatory status as license-exempt or licensed.”

In h were added more clarifications The spectrum in which there were no “coordinated frequency assignments” per operator was named in 16h “shared” or “non-exclusively assigned” Was explained the term “light-licensing” Exemplification of an P802.16h clarification, using basically the same words as in and not introducing any new definition: –“An example is the use of the term light licensing, where terminal location registration may be required but frequency assignments are not coordinated, and should be treated in the same way as license-exemption in this context.”

Conclusion: In P802.16h was introduced a better language In some places, instead-of using “license- exempt” was used the generic term “not- exclusively assigned” which includes both licensed-exempt and “licensing with no individual frequency assignments”, in line with

Claim 3: Comments 606 and 591 are also a reason for “disapprove” of other people These comments, by Peter Ecclesine, asked for text changes which were implemented in Nov Peter Ecclesine switched to “Approve” in Recirc. 2 (April 2009) –There are no problems with these comments

Conclusions No issues were found regarding the implementation of the comments 777 and 786 The “license-exempt” is already defined in IEEE and includes the licensed regulatory regime, when there are no individual frequency assignments per operator The text in P802.16h is not changing the meaning of the definition; it is only improving the language by introducing the term “not-exclusively assigned” –This improvement is not absolutely needed and could be removed

General observations The “issues” related to the comment implementation was risen directly in the WG plenary in July 2009, in the very last minute, 7 months after P802.16h/D8 was produced in Dec and was initiated the first Recirc. –The next available h SB Recirc 1 (Dec. 2008) and Recirc. 2 (April 2009) were not used The commenter had no comments related to the issue of “licensed-exempt” in the h SB Recirc. 1 or Recirc. 2 –The way to resolve problems related to the wording in a draft is by submitting comments in the SB process Accusations have NOT been confirmed by the careful examination of the material