<p dir="ltr">I guess the numbers community indicated a few reasons why they "proposed" a transfer of the trademarks to IETF.</p>
<p dir="ltr"> It may be good to check if those concerns where addressed in the report sent by the CWG legal client. If they were, then it will be good that Chairs of both communities discuss those points together.</p>
<p dir="ltr">If the CRISP chair is convinced, I am sure it will come back to the community for discussion. There is really no "cast in stone" content right now as the 3 communities has only proposed, so views can change, so long as there are compelling reasons.</p>
<p dir="ltr">Regards</p>
<div class="gmail_quote">On 6 Aug 2015 12:57 am, "Andrew Sullivan" <<a href="mailto:ajs@anvilwalrusden.com">ajs@anvilwalrusden.com</a>> wrote:<br type="attribution"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">On Wed, Aug 05, 2015 at 07:54:08PM -0400, Andrew Sullivan wrote:<br>
> communities somehow agree to an arrangement that fits the names<br>
> community's proposal requirements.<br>
<br>
Um, "numbers community's", of course. Sorry.<br>
<br>
A<br>
--<br>
Andrew Sullivan<br>
<a href="mailto:ajs@anvilwalrusden.com">ajs@anvilwalrusden.com</a><br>
_______________________________________________<br>
CWG-Stewardship mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:CWG-Stewardship@icann.org">CWG-Stewardship@icann.org</a><br>
<a href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship</a><br>
</blockquote></div>