Re: draft-ietf-ipr-trademarks-00.txt

[Bill Sommerfeld <sommerfeld at sun.com>]

On Sat, 2005-02-05 at 09:05, todd glassey wrote:

> > > The WG was asked by the trademark owner/original author to rename the
> > > protocol; instead the WG reached consensus that renaming to avoid the
> > > trademark was unnecessary.
> 
> Why is a WG making a decision of this type??? - this is clearly an openloop
> governance model and its totally unacceptable.

This is veering off-topic for this list.  But, for the record:

 - the consensus call was closely supervised by the relevant AD's and the IESG was aware of what was going on.

 - As with any other WG action, the appeals process in RFC2026 (which I believe you are familiar with) could have been invoked; it was not.

 - And, as with any other WG action, nothing is final until the documents are approved by the IESG.  

There were no "open loops".

						- Bill






_______________________________________________
Ipr-wg mailing list
Ipr-wg at ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipr-wg