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@pubpolicy.gatech.edu> wrote:
*From:* Greg Shatan [mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com]
On Monday, August 10, 2015, Mwendwa Kivuva <Kivuva@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@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@fuoye.edu.ng <seun.ojedeji@fuoye.edu.ng>* The key to understanding is humility - my view !