Re: [gnso-igo-ingo] Qualification Criteria - common ground?
I agree with Chuck changing an AND to an OR is a significant change in policy and additionally exceeds the scope of our license from the GNSO. Thanks, Robin On Feb 11, 2013, at 5:19 PM, Gomes, Chuck wrote: Thanks Jim. I am not sure that an ‘and/or’ wording is consistent with the GNSO PDP WG recommendations because it would mean that there in a case where there was no international treaty but laws in multiple jurisdictions would qualify for protections. If we applied this approach to trademark protection, that would mean that trademarks should be protected if there are multiple jurisdictions that protect trademarks even though there is not an international treaty to do so. The GNSO New gTLD PDP WG was clear that any rights needed to be based in international law and not national laws.ChuckFrom: owner-gnso-igo-ingo@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-igo- ingo@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Jim BikoffSent: Monday, February 11, 2013 6:43 PM To: rickert@xxxxxxxxxxx; gnso-igo-ingo@xxxxxxxxx Subject: [gnso-igo-ingo] Qualification Criteria - common ground? Dear Thomas and All: We are in favor of Option A with the following revision:"Protection of a name or an organization by virtue of an international treaty AND/OR national laws in multiple jurisdictions."Protection either through treaty or through multiple national laws evinces multiple nations' recognition that the organizations are unique, and that protecting the terms most directly associated with them advances the global public interest. There is no rational basis for requiring protection both through treaties and multiple national laws, as both effect the same end of multinational protection. Satisfying either factor should suffice to qualify one for protection. Therefore, Option A should be phrased in the disjunctive.We look forward to discussing the matter further with the group. Best regards, Jim James L. Bikoff Silverberg, Goldman & Bikoff, LLP 1101 30th Street, NW Suite 120 Washington, DC 20007 Tel: 202-944-3303 Fax: 202-944-3306 jbikoff@xxxxxxxxx -----Original Message-----From: owner-gnso-igo-ingo@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-igo- ingo@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Thomas RickertSent: Thursday, February 07, 2013 3:25 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 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
|