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

[Thomas Rickert <rickert@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

Hello Evan,
thanks for your thoughtful comment. I am open to discussing all types of 
variations that the group may propose. Do you have any suggestions as to how to 
map certain harms to certain remedies so we can discuss concrete proposals?

Thanks,
Thomas


Am 12.02.2013 um 20:55 schrieb Evan Leibovitch <evan@xxxxxxxxx>:

> Hello Thomas,
> 
> IMO...
> 
> This need not, and should not, be an all-or-nothing scenario. If we treat 
> this issue as one of minimizing harm as opposed to simply serving perceived 
> entitlement, different levels of need could indicate different levels of 
> remedy. One size need not fit all, so I don't see the two approaches as 
> mutually exclusive.
> 
> If a name of a body (not just its symbols or acronyms) is protected as 
> described in "A" it should be treated for ICANN purposes the same as a 
> commercial trademark. No better, no worse. Access to the clearinghouse, URS, 
> UDRP, etc. 
> 
> An organization meeting the stronger "B" criteria (to which I would extend to 
> requiring evidence of harm but would not demand treaty protection) could be 
> in a position to ask for additional measures -- ie. before-the-fact blocking 
> for its own name(s) as well as the public-facing names of its programs, 
> "strings including",  etc.
> 
> - Evan
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On 7 February 2013 15:25, Thomas Rickert <rickert@xxxxxxxxxxx> 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
> 
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> Evan Leibovitch
> Toronto Canada
> Em: evan at telly dot org
> Sk: evanleibovitch
> Tw: el56