This is true for a variety of leading SDOs.
Tsilas 05 – Senior Attorney at Microsoft, J.D. from Georgetown University School of Law, M.S. in Engineering Management from the Stevens Institute of Technology.
Nicos Tsilas, “The Threat to Innovation, Interoperability, and Government Procurement Options From Recently Proposed Definitions of “Open Standards”,” International Journal of Communications Law & Policy, https://ciaotest.cc.columbia.edu/olj/ijclp/ijclp_10/ijclp_10h.pdf
This proposed definition is squarely at odds with the approach taken by the world’s leading standards development organizations. For example, contrary to the IDA definition, the intellectual property rights (IPR) policies of ETSI, IEEE, IETF, ISO/IEC, ITU, OMA, ANSI, ECMA, and other leading standards organizations do not mandate royalty-free licensing or prohibit other “constraints on the re-use of the standard.” Rather, these organizations have policies that seek reasonable and non-discriminatory (RAND) licensing commitments, including the possibility of charging a reasonable royalty, as a basis for standards-related IP licensing for participants in the organization’s standards activities.5