How about the IESG simply rescinds its decision in this week's meeting? I don't see any need for an appeal; if there's a prima facie violation of the disclosure rules, it's just a management item. Much less bother than an appeal.
Of course, the rescission would be subject to appeal, but that's another story. Brian On 2009-11-19 15:02, Cullen Jennings wrote: > > On October 8, the IESG approved the registration of > application/3gpp-ims+xml Media Type. On Nov 2, RIM filed an IPR > disclosure related to this at > > https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/1219/ > > The associated patent, filed Oct 2008, is at > > http://www.google.com/patents?id=Mk7GAAAAEBAJ > > and the related draft is > > http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-bakker-sipping-3gpp-ims-xml-body-handling > > I will note John-Luc Bakker from RIM is an author of both the patent > and and the draft. The draft has been widely discussed at IETF with no > mention of IPR before this. As an IESG member, I was not aware of this > IPR at the time the approval was made and I do not believe any other > IESG members were aware of it. I do believe the discussion would have > been different had the IESG been aware of this IPR. > > If anyone thinks this is, ah, inappropriate, I would recommend they > appeal the IESG decision to approve this. (see section 6.5 of RFC 2026 > for how this works). An IETF LC on this in the future would allow the > community to make an decision that was informed of the IPR. > > Cullen > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > Ietf mailing list > Ietf@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf > _______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
