I apologize for the confusion and alarm this caused. There’s been some miscommunication between the foundation and us, for which I accept responsibility.

We prefer decentralized management of the trademark, and that’s why we proposed the 2-of-2 multisig structure and have often spoken in support of it.

The foundation recently suggested that it could use the resulting veto power to impose conditions on what decisions the community would be allowed to make. This gave me misgivings about increasing the number of organizations that have the power to veto the community’s decisions by using the trademark.

I talked about this with the foundation, publicly posted this statement, and privately suggested to them that we resolve this by amending the proposed 2-of-2 agreement with the additional understanding that neither organization would unilaterally use their veto power to override the community’s decision (as represented by the Community Advisory Panel).

I also asked that we agree that within a reasonable time frame we extend it to a 2-of-3 agreement, with a third party chosen by the Community Advisory Panel. It’s likely these ideas were not well communicated.

We’ll continue conversations with the Foundation and report back on further developments. Like we’ve previously stated, as long as ECC remains the sole owner of the trademark, we’re committed to using it solely to support the community’s decision.