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

[Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@xxxxxxxxx>]

Again, I have a problem with the questions. I do not believe that 
this WG should be granting protection as specified in A without other 
accompanying criteria. If the treaties/laws are so compelling, this 
should be a legal decision and not a policy one.
For B, the proposal to use national law aw the definition of public 
interest just reverts to option A. But without the note, it is a good start.
Alan

At 07/02/2013 03:25 PM, Thomas Rickert wrote:

> 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