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

[Avri Doria <avri@xxxxxxx>]

+1 for Option A

On 10 Feb 2013, at 16:53, Mason Cole wrote:

> 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
>> 
>> 
>> 
>