Re: The (Klingon) Empire Strikes Back

The committee doesn't "tentatively approve, pending X".

But the good news is that I think it was the sense of the committee that
the evidence of use for Klingon is now sufficient, and the rest of the
proposal was in good shape (other than the lack of a date), so really only
the IP stands in the way.

I would suggest that the Klingon community work towards getting Paramount
to engage with us, so that any IP issues could be settled.

Mark

Mark

On Thu, Nov 10, 2016 at 10:33 AM, Shawn Steele <Shawn.Steele_at_microsoft.com>
wrote:

> More generally, does that mean that alphabets with perceived owners will
> only be considered for encoding with permission from those owner(s)? What
> if the ownership is ambiguous or unclear?
>
>
>
> Getting permission may be a lot of work, or cost money, in some cases.
> Will applications be considered pending permission, perhaps being
> provisionally approved until such permission is received?
>
>
>
> Is there specific language that Unicode would require from owners to be
> comfortable in these cases? It makes little sense for a submitter to go
> through a complex exercise to request permission if Unicode is not
> comfortable with the wording of the permission that is garnered. Are there
> other such agreements that could perhaps be used as templates?
>
>
>
> Historically, the message pIqaD supporters have heard from Unicode has
> been that pIqaD is a toy script that does not have enough use. The new
> proposal attempts to respond to those concerns, particularly since there is
> more interest in the script now. Now, additional (valid) concerns are
> being raised.
>
>
>
> In Mark’s case it seems like it would be nice if Unicode could consider
> the rest of the proposal and either tentatively approve it pending
> Paramount’s approval, or to provide feedback as to other defects in the
> proposal that would need addressed for consideration. Meanwhile Mark can
> figure out how to get Paramount’s agreement.
>
>
>
> -Shawn
>
>
>
> *From:* Unicode [mailto:unicode-bounces_at_unicode.org] *On Behalf Of *Peter
> Constable
> *Sent:* Wednesday, November 9, 2016 8:49 PM
> *To:* Mark E. Shoulson <mark_at_kli.org>; David Faulks <
> davidj_faulks_at_yahoo.ca>
> *Cc:* Unicode Mailing List <unicode_at_unicode.org>
> *Subject:* RE: The (Klingon) Empire Strikes Back
>
>
>
> *From:* Unicode [mailto:unicode-bounces_at_unicode.org
> <unicode-bounces_at_unicode.org>] *On Behalf Of *Mark E. Shoulson
> *Sent:* Friday, November 4, 2016 1:18 PM
>
> > At any rate, this isn't Unicode's problem…
>
>
>
> You saying that potential IP issues are not Unicode’s problem does not in
> fact make it not a problem. A statement in writing from authorized
> Paramount representatives stating it would not be a problem for either
> Unicode, its members or implementers of Unicode would make it not a problem
> for Unicode.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Peter
>
Received on Thu Nov 10 2016 - 13:36:14 CST