• Delete first paragraph of 2.2.1. -- If you're not going to RF license your patents, you don't get to stay in the development group.  This is a weasel clause that invalidates the whole RF idea.  I'm willing to tolerate the second paragraph, since by that time, participation has already occurred, and a (theoretically) unforeseen patent issue has arisen.
• Item 2.2.3: I am somewhat confused.  "...must exclude Essential Claims covered in the requirements document immediately upon joining the Working Group."  Does this mean that they exclude their patents from the RF terms?  If so, I object.  This item should indicate that if you join an existent working group after the initial 60 day period, and you have patent issues, you must either immediately withdraw, or RF license your patents, after some grace period.  Once the grace period expires, you're required to RF license your patents, just as though you passed the 60 day initial WG formation grace period without disclosure.  Since the WG will already have been in operation for some time, and any prospective participant would have had that time to consider patent issues, the grace period should be LESS than 60 days.
• Item 2.2.4: I'm not very happy with this, but I'm not sure how to handle it either.  There can be situations where the participants are not aware of a patent in progress, even if their company would be the eventual holder of said patent.  However, the way it is currently worded allows "submarine patents": patents filed for, and deliberately kept pending/unpublished, for the express purpose of later filing an exclusion that affects an already developed standard.  While this can certainly happen with non-participants, it should never happen with participants.  Particularly because a participant might deliberately push a standard in a direction that it would not otherwise go, if the existence of the patent was known beforehand.
• Item 2.4: However, "invited experts" who are aware of existent, pending, or unpublished patents should at least make known that such patents exist, even if they do not disclose the exact nature of those patents.  At that time, the working group can make a "conflict of interest" decision, on whether or not to continue their relationship with the "invited expert".  I note the existence of Items 4.5 and 4.8, but am concerned that Item 2.4 would appear to limit the disclosure requirements to only those which the "invited expert" controls directly.
• Item 3: Part 7:  "...choice of law and dispute resolution."  I suppose asking the W3C to nail down the process would be rather difficult, given the international nature of standards, but this clause does make me nervous, given the possibility of both deliberate, and unforeseen, consequences of requiring enforcement under the laws of a particular country.  For example: a fundamentalist muslim country might choose to implement laws that state that any patents issues that their law covers require that patent to never be used for any purpose conducive to pornography.  (Granted, this may be reaching a bit, but I've heard stranger!)  Given the nature of the web, any standard developed by the W3C could easily be used for such purposes.
• Item 4.4: Nope.  As soon as you are aware of such a patent, disclosure of at least the existence of the patent must be made.
• In light of 4.4, I think a clause should be added that if a patent is being filed for on the basis of activities by a WG, it must be declared immediately, and must be immediately licensed according to the W3C RF terms.  Otherwise, you're inviting people to quietly stake claims to what would otherwise be open knowledge.  The other earlier exclusion clauses could make it possible to completely avoid RF licensing, so long as the actual member of the WG does not know of the patent filing.  (In other words, if you're mooching off of W3C work, you might get your patent, but you don't get to charge for it, assuming that it ends up in the recommendation.)
• Item 4.6: I'm not sure why, but that last sentence makes me nervous.

Given the nature of the issues, I'm overall pleased at how well this document has turned out; in spite of my objections to certain portions of the document.

 Many Thanks!

    Edwin Wiles

NOTE: I am not an official representative of Northrop Grumman, or any portion of that company.  In this issue, I represent only myself.