Agreement for Paramount

[Mark E. Shoulson]

"Initiative has to come from the proposers... Unicode doesn't have the 
capacity to take the lead in preparing proposals..."  I thought that's 
what I was doing (with my own volunteered time). I'm working on finding 
out if, after not-taking the lead, Unicode is at least willing to follow 
up, which apparently they have to do (or rather, nobody else can do it, 
but they don't have to; I can only hope they will.)  Working on it.  
These exchanges have given me an idea of another route to explore.

~mark

On 11/30/21 05:45, Peter Constable via Unicode wrote:
>
> Forgot to include the list.
>
> *From:* Peter Constable
> *Sent:* November 29, 2021 11:55 PM
> *To:* Mark E. Shoulson <mark at kli.org>
> *Subject:* RE: Agreement for Paramount
>
> *From:* Unicore <unicore-bounces at corp.unicode.org> *On Behalf Of *Mark 
> E. Shoulson via Unicore
> *Sent:* November 28, 2021 2:29 PM
> *Subject:* Re: Agreement for Paramount
>
> [snip]
>
> > If Unicode is willing to do the negotiations, why are we still 
> arguing about this?
>
> The Unicode Consortium isn’t prepared to take the lead in establishing 
> engagement from 3rd-party IP holders. That initiative needs to come 
> from the proposers championing the encoding of a given script. With 
> all of the many scripts that are candidates for encoding, Unicode 
> doesn’t have the capacity to take the lead in preparing proposals for 
> individual scripts, or even to take the lead in resolving questions of 
> IP rights in cases in which there are potential concerns. It’s enough 
> for the volunteers (whose time has been donated, in most cases, by 
> their employers) to vet proposals and work through the technical 
> details that often need to be sorted out.
>
> Peter
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://corp.unicode.org/pipermail/unicode/attachments/20211130/3a7c401f/attachment.htm>