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

[Thomas Rickert <rickert@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

All,
thanks to those who have responded. Those who have not done so yet, please do 
provide an answer!

In response to some of the comments that were made:

@David Maher:

What could a better measure of the mandate to "work in the public interest" be? 
We have discussed many criteria over the last couple of months. Which criterion 
/ which criteria need to be added in your view?

@Alan Greenberg:

I did not ask for A or B, but also for potential variations. Please come up 
with concrete ideas, if you can at this stage (I know you wanted to learn more 
about the problem first to then draft the criteria).

Thanks,
Thomas 

Am 07.02.2013 um 22:45 schrieb 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 consider