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

[Mason Cole <mcole@xxxxxxxxxx>]

Option A is my preference as well.


On Feb 9, 2013, at 2:36 PM, Robin Gross wrote:

> Option A is my preference.
> 
> Thanks,
> Robin Gross
> 
> 
> On Feb 7, 2013, at 12:25 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
>> 
>> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IP JUSTICE
> Robin Gross, Executive Director
> 1192 Haight Street, San Francisco, CA  94117  USA
> p: +1-415-553-6261    f: +1-415-462-6451
> w: http://www.ipjustice.org     e: robin@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> 
> 
>