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

[Mueller, Milton L]

From: Greg Shatan [mailto:gregshatanipc at gmail.com]

On Monday, August 10, 2015, Mwendwa Kivuva <Kivuva at transworldafrica.com<mailto:Kivuva at transworldafrica.com>> wrote:
Certainly, if the numbering community are asked to adopt another stance than that in their proposal, the community has to be given a chance to debate and ratify. That is part

> And shouldn't the names community have that opportunity now?

MM: The names community has had that opportunity for about six months. And it still does have that opportunity. The problem is that you have failed to convince even the names community that ICANN should hold the trademarks – there is clearly no consensus on this – and most of us here have expressed a willingness to accept the CRISP proposal. So what Seun called “neutral” simply meant that there is no consensus here to overcome or substitute for the CRISP proposal, and in the absence of such a consensus proposal it is ok to accede to what the others have already accepted.

> In any event, that doesn't mean an entire proposal would be sent back for re-approval.

MM: No, but a refusal to accept the CRISP proposal and development of another alternative does mean an important part of the proposal would have to be re-approved by two other communities. And it’s not like we have a consensus alternative for the other communities to consider. So it also means spending another month or two developing an alternative. All this, for a position that seem to be supported by only you.


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/cwg-stewardship/attachments/20150810/39739f73/attachment.html>