[CWG-Stewardship] FW: [client com] IPR Memo

[Seun Ojedeji]

I guess the numbers community indicated a few reasons why they "proposed" a
transfer of the trademarks to IETF.

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.

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.

Regards
On 6 Aug 2015 12:57 am, "Andrew Sullivan" <ajs at anvilwalrusden.com> wrote:

> On Wed, Aug 05, 2015 at 07:54:08PM -0400, Andrew Sullivan wrote:
> > communities somehow agree to an arrangement that fits the names
> > community's proposal requirements.
>
> Um, "numbers community's", of course.  Sorry.
>
> A
> --
> Andrew Sullivan
> ajs at anvilwalrusden.com
> _______________________________________________
> CWG-Stewardship mailing list
> CWG-Stewardship at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/cwg-stewardship/attachments/20150806/474d5815/attachment.html>