Up until today I have thought that the “2-of-2” means that agreement is required from both organizations on any enforcement of or changes to the trademark. Such as with 2-of-2 multisig wallets, where 2-of-2 signatures are required to make any transactions. And this is after reading about the proposed policy several times over the past couple of years and seeing people from the ECC and Zfnd talk about the policy at various conferences.
Instead, what I’m understanding now after reading recent posts is that the proposed agreement is more like a 1-of-2, where either organization can unilaterally enforce the trademark:
To me, the agreement doesn’t make sense as a “2-of-2” unless agreement by both “signers” is required to make any enforcement of or changes to the trademark (i.e. “transactions” using the “multisig wallet”). So agreement by both signers would be required to:
- Enforce use of the trademark against a team claiming to develop Zcash software (metaphorically, this would be a “transaction from multisig wallet”)
- Change control of the trademark from a 2-of-2 agreement to 3-of-5, or some other arrangement (metaphorically, an “update to the signing policy of the multisig wallet”)
If we’re going to use the metaphor of a multisig, and that’s the mental model that’s been sold to the community for this agreement, I think the actual agreement should behave like a 2-of-2 multisig wallet and require agreement from both signers for any use of the wallet. Otherwise the result is no action.
In light of the ongoing negotiations between ECC and Zfnd, I hope this perspective is taken into consideration.