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

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

I think the three of us are in agreement on this approach.

Chuck

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Avri Doria [mailto:avri@xxxxxxx]
> Sent: Tuesday, January 22, 2013 10:35 AM
> To: Gomes, Chuck
> Cc: Mary.Wong@xxxxxxxxxxx; Berry Cobb; gnso-igo-ingo-adm@xxxxxxxxx
> Subject: Re: [gnso-igo-ingo-adm] Pending work items
> 
> Hi,
> 
> I agree that this should be listed as a viewpoint that is contrary.  It
> is all well and good them to say they define which names get automatic
> inclusion - which is what it implies as who else could decide which of
> the names had absolute protection.  I do not see how we could agree
> that multiple conditions apply to everyone but them.
> 
> I beleive the hoops regimes should be strict enough to keep any
> undefined protection from sneaking in.
> 
> avri
> 
> On 16 Jan 2013, at 17:20, Gomes, Chuck wrote:
> 
> > 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]
> > Sent: Wednesday, January 16, 2013 4:19 PM
> > To: Avri Doria; Gomes, Chuck
> > Cc: Berry Cobb; 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
> > 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>
> > To:
> > Avri Doria <avri@xxxxxxx>
> > CC:
> > Mary Wong <MWong@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>, "gnso-igo-ingo-adm@xxxxxxxxx"
> > <gnso-igo-ingo-adm@xxxxxxxxx>, Berry Cobb <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; 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; 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
> > > >>>
> > > >>>
> > > >>>
> > > >
> > > >
> >