Could a specification project consume "External Specifications"?

The JESP currently states:
> All development that modifies content in the **javax** namespace must be moved to a **jakarta** namespace. All **jakarta** namespace >development must occur within the scope of a Specification Project operating under the purview of the Jakarta EE Working >Group’s Specification Committee and must implement the process as defined by the most recently adopted revision of the JESP.

If a specification was to consume "external specifications" using a different namespace, e.g. "org.eclipse.microprofile", "org.springframework", "io.cncf", "io.opentracing", etc. (just few examples) for improved "Cloud Nativity" or another need, would that be legitimate, or not?
As the namespace is currently specified to be "jakarta" and other possible conflicts like different IP regimes, etc. may also arise from this.

Start with the JESP namespace and Specification Project requirements quoted in the issue, then examine the cited external namespaces and the possible IP-regime conflict. Done means reaching and documenting a clear decision on whether external specifications may be consumed and what process or rule would govern them.

Written by the indexing model from the issue text.