RE: [gnso-igo-ingo-adm] RE: Pending work items

["Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

I misspoke about the RCRC.  I had seen their comment that Barry entered at the 
top of the spreadsheet:
"Comment (RCRC): Given the international protection of the RCRC designations 
under universally accepted norms of international humanitarian law, 
automaticity of the protections should be the rule. This requires that 
preventive measures be taken and mechanisms foreseen and implemented in order 
to enforce the reservation of the designations. A priori, the designations 
should be protected in their own right as the designations of the protective 
emblems of armed forces medical services in times of armed conflict. As such, 
the names of the respective RCRC organisations should therefore be preserved 
from registration. The only possible instance in which additional requirements 
could be required (e.g. application) might be for example for the acronyms of 
the international components of the International Red Cross and Red Crescent 
Movement (i.e. ICRC and IFRC, which do not include any of the protected Red 
Cross or Red Crescent designations, but should also usefully enjoy protection 
from registration as domain names, or as part thereof)."
My suggestion would be that we include this comment as a point of view that 
differs from what we have I think agreed to so far or simply as one more point 
of view.  I think that there is value in having an organization apply to avoid 
organizations being granted protection that may not need or want the 
protection.  But maybe the Red Cross is an exception because we know they want 
it.
Chuck
From: owner-gnso-igo-ingo-adm@xxxxxxxxx 
[mailto:owner-gnso-igo-ingo-adm@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Gomes, Chuck
Sent: Wednesday, January 16, 2013 4:49 PM
To: Mary.Wong@xxxxxxxxxxx; Avri Doria
Cc: Berry Cobb; gnso-igo-ingo-adm@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: [gnso-igo-ingo-adm] RE: Pending work items

I meant the following which was a comment at the bottom of the spreadsheet and 
which turns out to be the same comment you cited from email:
"IOC  Comment 15 JAN 2013
The IOC does not have any specific revisions to this spreadsheet.
However, the IOC believes that once an organization satisfies the qualification 
criteria, that they should be admitted upon application without having to jump 
through any additional hoops."
I agree with this also.  Avri - what do you think?
Did the RCRC make a comment?  If so, I didn't see it.
Chuck

From: Mary.Wong@xxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:Mary.Wong@xxxxxxxxxxx> 
[mailto:Mary.Wong@xxxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Wednesday, January 16, 2013 4:19 PM
To: Avri Doria; Gomes, Chuck
Cc: Berry Cobb; gnso-igo-ingo-adm@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:gnso-igo-ingo-adm@xxxxxxxxx>
Subject: [gnso-igo-ingo-adm] RE: Pending work items


Hi Chuck, did you mean RCRC? That's what I saw. The IOC sent in a comment by 
email, I believe, as follows:

The IOC does not have any specific revisions to this spreadsheet.

However, the IOC believes that once an organization satisfies the qualification 
criteria, that they should be admitted upon application without having to jump 
through any additional hoops.


In any case, I agree - not that difficult to deal with.


Avri, how should we proceed with the consolidation as requested by Thomas on 
the call today?


Cheers

Mary


Mary W S Wong
Professor of Law
Director, Franklin Pierce Center for IP
Chair, Graduate IP Programs
UNIVERSITY OF NEW HAMPSHIRE SCHOOL OF LAW
Two White Street
Concord, NH 03301
USA
Email: mary.wong@xxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:mary.wong@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Phone: 1-603-513-5143
Webpage: http://www.law.unh.edu/marywong/index.php
Selected writings available on the Social Science Research Network (SSRN) at: 
http://ssrn.com/author=437584


>>>

From:


"Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx>>


To:


Avri Doria <avri@xxxxxxx<mailto:avri@xxxxxxx>>


CC:


Mary Wong <MWong@xxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:MWong@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>>, 
"gnso-igo-ingo-adm@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:gnso-igo-ingo-adm@xxxxxxxxx>" 
<gnso-igo-ingo-adm@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:gnso-igo-ingo-adm@xxxxxxxxx>>, Berry Cobb 
<mail@xxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:mail@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>>


Date:


1/16/2013 2:50 PM


Subject:


[gnso-igo-ingo-adm] RE: Pending work items


Avri/Mary,

In looking at v.1.7 of the spreadsheet, I could only find a comment added from 
the IOC.  Am I correct on that?  If so, there comment seems to me to be fairly 
easy to handle.

Chuck

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Avri Doria [mailto:avri@xxxxxxx]
> Sent: Wednesday, January 16, 2013 11:31 AM
> To: Gomes, Chuck
> Cc: Mary Wong; 
> gnso-igo-ingo-adm@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:gnso-igo-ingo-adm@xxxxxxxxx>; Berry Cobb
> Subject: Re: Pending work items
>
> Hi,
>
> I agree.
>
> But at least we now know what we need to do.  I do not think we have
> the biggest most important issues at the moment.
>
> avri
>
> On 16 Jan 2013, at 09:42, Gomes, Chuck wrote:
>
> > At this late stage,  I don't think we have time to do more than defer
> to the coming week.
> >
> > Chuck
> >
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: Avri Doria [mailto:avri@xxxxxxx]
> >> Sent: Wednesday, January 16, 2013 9:31 AM
> >> To: Mary Wong; Gomes, Chuck
> >> Cc: gnso-igo-ingo-adm@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:gnso-igo-ingo-adm@xxxxxxxxx>; Berry 
> >> Cobb
> >> Subject: Re: Pending work items
> >>
> >> Hi,
> >>
> >> Tried using the list yesterday, but then noticed I never got the
> >> message and thus you probably didn't either.
> >>
> >> avri
> >>
> >> On 15 Jan 2013, at 17:48, Avri Doria wrote:
> >>
> >>> Hi,
> >>>
> >>> We have work items pending from last week.
> >>>
> >>> - Integrate RCRC stuff
> >>> - come up with some suggestions for way to figure out the magnitude
> >> of the various numbers included in the questions.
> >>> - come up with suggestions for way to figure out the of the sort of
> >> metrics
> >>>
> >>> Suggestions.
> >>>
> >>> I have no problem telling the group we have not worked on it at
> >> tomorrow's meeting.  But if anyone has thoughts, better.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> avri
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >
> >