Comment Re:What happened to royalty free? (Score 1) 112
As Bob Wyman pointed out, I haven't looked at the new final draft in depth just yet. But my understanding of the W3C Recommendation Process (http://www.w3.org/Consortium/Process-20010719/tr. html#RecsW3C)is that the Director is "responsible for assessing consensus" before a W3C Rec is issued (see http://www.w3.org/Consortium/Process-20010719/orga nization.html#def-Director). I interpret this to mean that no finished product goes out the W3C door without Tim B-L's explicit approval.
I'm guessing that if the PAG has given its unanimous approval, then B-L won't personally object to the finished product. But remember, the PAG is already stacked with people sympathetic to B-L's anti-patent beliefs; so these people (including the W3C counsel as you suggest) will already do B-L's dirty work so he won't have to. Very similar to the way that Weitzner was appointed head of the PPWG - if B-L had appointed a pro-patents person to head the PPWG, the PPWG never would have listened to all the people who support the RF policy, and surely the W3C would embrace RAND more than it does now.
I'm guessing that if the PAG has given its unanimous approval, then B-L won't personally object to the finished product. But remember, the PAG is already stacked with people sympathetic to B-L's anti-patent beliefs; so these people (including the W3C counsel as you suggest) will already do B-L's dirty work so he won't have to. Very similar to the way that Weitzner was appointed head of the PPWG - if B-L had appointed a pro-patents person to head the PPWG, the PPWG never would have listened to all the people who support the RF policy, and surely the W3C would embrace RAND more than it does now.
