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

[Mwendwa Kivuva]

Sure Greg, I have not seen any objection from any community should they be
required to modify any section of their proposal. But on the contrary,
there is no operational community that has seen the need to modify its
proposals so far
On Aug 10, 2015 11:04 AM, "Greg Shatan" <gregshatanipc at gmail.com> wrote:

> And shouldn't the names community have that opportunity now?
>
> In any event, that doesn't mean an entire proposal would be sent back for
> re-approval.
>
> On Monday, August 10, 2015, Mwendwa Kivuva <Kivuva at transworldafrica.com>
> wrote:
>
>>
>> On 10 August 2015 at 09:46, Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> I also don't think it's accurate to state that failing to embrace the
>>> CRISP proposal will result in "any of our three community proposals
>>> having to go back to the community process and seek for re-approval."
>>>  There's no indication that needs to happen, and stating that it will tends
>>> to look like an attempt to shove the CWG into accepting the CRISP proposal
>>> by proposing that some awful thing will happen if we don't. That may not
>>> have been the intent, but it certainly could be the effect.
>>>
>>
>> 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 of the principles NTIA expects us to
>> follow: Support and enhance the multistakeholder model; and Meet the needs
>> and expectations of the global customers and partners of the IANA services.
>>
>> My views alone.
>>
>> Regards
>> ______________________
>> Mwendwa Kivuva, Nairobi, Kenya
>>
>> "There are some men who lift the age they inhabit, till all men walk on
>> higher ground in that lifetime." - Maxwell Anderson
>>
>>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/cwg-stewardship/attachments/20150810/cf9cb730/attachment-0001.html>