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

[Jim Bikoff <jbikoff@xxxxxxxxx>]

Dear Chuck,

Thank you for your response.

It is well within the mandate of this group to define "laws in multiple 
jurisdictions." To clarify, "laws in multiple jurisdictions" should refer only 
to special sui generis laws like those national laws that protect the IOC and 
Red Cross organizations.  As stated by the GAC and the ICANN Board paper on 
IOC/RCRC protections, very few, if any organizations enjoy this special, 
specific protection, which is different from ordinary trademark protection. 
(The Board paper is available here: 
http://www.icann.org/en/groups/board/documents/briefing-materials-unredacted-20jun11-en.
  The GAC paper can be found here: 
https://gacweb.icann.org/download/attachments/1540128/GAC+advice+on+IOC+and+Red+Cross+Sep.+2011.pdf?version=1&modificationDate=1317031625000)

The goal should be to show that a significant number of countries have 
acknowledged a problem and enacted protections.  In addition to international 
treaties, we believe that this can be shown by sui generis laws, enacted in 
multiple jurisdictions, providing special protection beyond ordinary trademark 
protection.

Under Option A, "Protection of a name or an organization by virtue of an 
international treaty and/or national laws in multiple jurisdictions"  is an 
appropriate criterion.

We hope this explanation clarifies why we believe this criterion should be 
phrased this way.

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<mailto:jbikoff@xxxxxxxxx>


From: owner-gnso-igo-ingo@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:owner-gnso-igo-ingo@xxxxxxxxx> 
[mailto:owner-gnso-igo-ingo@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Gomes, Chuck
Sent: Monday, February 11, 2013 8:20 PM
To: Jim Bikoff; rickert@xxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:rickert@xxxxxxxxxxx>; 
gnso-igo-ingo@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:gnso-igo-ingo@xxxxxxxxx>
Subject: RE: [gnso-igo-ingo] Qualification Criteria - common ground?

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.

Chuck

From: owner-gnso-igo-ingo@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:owner-gnso-igo-ingo@xxxxxxxxx> 
[mailto:owner-gnso-igo-ingo@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Jim Bikoff
Sent: Monday, February 11, 2013 6:43 PM
To: rickert@xxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:rickert@xxxxxxxxxxx>; 
gnso-igo-ingo@xxxxxxxxx<mailto: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<mailto:jbikoff@xxxxxxxxx>



-----Original Message-----
From: owner-gnso-igo-ingo@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:owner-gnso-igo-ingo@xxxxxxxxx> 
[mailto:owner-gnso-igo-ingo@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Thomas Rickert
Sent: Thursday, February 07, 2013 3:25 PM
To: gnso-igo-ingo@xxxxxxxxx<mailto: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