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

[Seun Ojedeji]

Hi,

My guess is that the Co-Chairs at the moment prefer suggestions that
further postpone the CWG's need to make decision on the TM issue. Otherwise
i fail to understand what other convincing is required to have a consensus
view of the CWG on this matter (which i will again say is supposed to be
minor)

While my preference has always been leaving the TM with ICANN, i have no
issue with it going to the IETF trust because i think that would be the
least complicated and "trusted" external entity that can house the TM. Any
other external setup would be complicated, unpredictable and not in anyway
justify the "perceived" fear of leaving it with ICANN

It is my hope that the co-chairs will rethink the need for a
cross-operational community group as it will still bring us back to
status-quo considering that we have no CWG's view at the moment.

Regards

On Mon, Aug 10, 2015 at 1:54 PM, Mueller, Milton L <
milton.mueller at pubpolicy.gatech.edu> wrote:

>
>
>
>
> *From:* Greg Shatan [mailto:gregshatanipc at gmail.com]
>
>
>
> On Monday, August 10, 2015, Mwendwa Kivuva <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.
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> CWG-Stewardship mailing list
> CWG-Stewardship at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
>
>


-- 
------------------------------------------------------------------------





*Seun Ojedeji,Federal University Oye-Ekitiweb:      http://www.fuoye.edu.ng
<http://www.fuoye.edu.ng> Mobile: +2348035233535**alt email:
<http://goog_1872880453>seun.ojedeji at fuoye.edu.ng
<seun.ojedeji at fuoye.edu.ng>*

The key to understanding is humility - my view !
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/cwg-stewardship/attachments/20150810/b42050ba/attachment.html>