I don't see the issue as being whether the decision would have been different, the rules were not followed. Rescinding the decision is certainly appropriate. It would be useful to know whether any other parties have implemented this spec to date. If so the situation is rather different since the other parties would be affected in two ways, first by the withdrawal of the registration itself but secondly as it may affect defenses against a RIM infringement claim under the Dell decision. We should remember that the intention of the rules was to make them self-policing by attempting to engage legal sanctions in the case of default. If a company does not make timely disclosure of its IPR it risks having damaged it. On Wed, Nov 18, 2009 at 9:13 PM, Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > 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@xxxxxxxx >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf >> > _______________________________________________ > Ietf mailing list > Ietf@xxxxxxxx > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf > -- -- New Website: http://hallambaker.com/ View Quantum of Stupid podcasts, Tuesday and Thursday each week, http://quantumofstupid.com/ _______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf