RE: [gnso-igo-ingo] Qualification Criteria - common ground?

["David W. Maher" <dmaher@xxxxxxx>]

Thomas:
My support is somewhat in favor of A, but with the caveat that both A and B are 
preliminary approaches to the question of qualification. For example, B needs a 
better measure of the mandate to "work in the public interest."
David W. Maher
Senior Vice President - Law & Policy
Public Interest Registry
+1 312 375 4849
________________________________________
From: owner-gnso-igo-ingo@xxxxxxxxx [owner-gnso-igo-ingo@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf 
Of Thomas Rickert [rickert@xxxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Thursday, February 07, 2013 2:25 PM
To: gnso-igo-ingo@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: [gnso-igo-ingo] Qualification Criteria - common ground?

All,
as discussed during yesterday's call, I would like to sound out whether there 
is some common ground with respect to the qualification criteria regarding the 
following proposals developed during the call. These suggestions seemed to have 
some supporters each:

Option A:

Protection of a name or an organization by virtue of an international treaty 
AND protection in multiple jurisdictions.

Option B:

The existence of a name, acronym or designation by virtue of an international 
treaty AND the requirement of the organization to be mandated to work in the 
global public interest.
(Note: It was proposed that the global public interest can be shown by existing 
protection under multiple national laws).


I repeat my encouragement to continue our vivid exchange of thoughts on the 
mailing list. Please let the group know whether you like both or one or a 
variation of the above or none of the options.

This exercise should help us find out whether we can use one or both options as 
a starting point for developing a proposal supported by a considerable part of 
the group.

Thanks,
Thomas