RE: [gnso-igo-ingo] Proposed protection matrix - to be discussed during the next call

["Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Here are my personal thoughts regarding two of criteria mentioned by Claudia 
based on my view of whether they are objective & measurable.

"international scope and operations" - objective & measurable

"of such public importance" - only measurable based on subjective criteria

Chuck

From: owner-gnso-igo-ingo@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-igo-ingo@xxxxxxxxx] On 
Behalf Of Claudia MACMASTER TAMARIT
Sent: Wednesday, February 27, 2013 6:50 AM
To: gnso-igo-ingo@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: FW: [gnso-igo-ingo] Proposed protection matrix - to be discussed 
during the next call

Dear All,

I fully agree we must give an overall rationale to grant protection on a 
non-biased basis.

It follows that we object to the suggestion of excluding INGOs with 
international scope and operations, and whose primary mission is of such public 
importance that some form of special protection for its name and acronym can be 
justified simply because their names may not enjoy protection "beyond" national 
and international trademark laws, e.g., organizations that enjoy trademark 
protections in over 150+ countries and rely on such treaty protection as from 
the TRIPS Agreement and the Paris Convention to grant equal treatment under 
trademark laws in foreign jurisdictions.

Let's think of who that might exclude unjustifiably.  Notably large 
international NGOs like those who enjoy General Consultative Status with the UN 
ECOSOC<http://esango.un.org/paperless/Web?page=static&content=intro> (some 140) 
must satisfy rigorous criteria and tend to be fairly large, established 
international NGOs with a broad geographical reach.
Apparently to be eligible for consultative status,

*        an NGO must have been in existence (officially registered with the 
appropriate government authorities as an NGO/non-profit) for at least two years;

*        must have an established headquarters;

*        a democratically adopted constitution;

*        authority to speak for its members;

*        a representative structure;

*        appropriate mechanisms of accountability; and,

*        democratic and transparent decision-making processes;

*        The basic resources of the organization must be derived in the main 
part

from contributions of the national affiliates or other components or from 
individual members.

See list as of November 2011, 
PDF<http://csonet.org/content/documents/E2011INF4.pdf>.

Sincerely,
Claudia MacMaster Tamarit
(ISO) International Organization for Standardization



From: owner-gnso-igo-ingo@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:owner-gnso-igo-ingo@xxxxxxxxx> 
[mailto:owner-gnso-igo-ingo@xxxxxxxxx]<mailto:[mailto:owner-gnso-igo-ingo@xxxxxxxxx]>
 On Behalf Of Jim Bikoff
Sent: 2013-02-26 23:44
To: gnso-igo-ingo@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:gnso-igo-ingo@xxxxxxxxx>
Cc: David Heasley; Kiran Malancharuvil
Subject: [gnso-igo-ingo] Proposed protection matrix - to be discussed during 
the next call

Dear All,

Thomas' amalgamation of criteria makes meaningful progress in the right 
direction, and is consistent with Mary's overall rationale, which can be found 
in her email from February 13, 2013.

On Friday, as was suggested during the group teleconference, we had a very 
constructive conversation with Mary about her summation of the overall 
rationale--a summation of common ground among qualification criteria that 
includes all the "fruit," while allowing for differentiation among the 
different fruits.

Mary's February 13, 2013 summation had three planks:


"It seems to me that what we are striving to get to is a minimum standard to 
qualify for special protections (of whatever nature), and that many of those 
that have been suggested already, e.g. treaties, national laws, organizational 
mandates etc., are a form of proxy for the vague concept that:



"an organization be



*         international in scope and operations, and



*         its primary mission be of such public importance



*         that some form of special protection for its name and acronym can be 
justified." [bullets added.]



We have suggested to Mary, and we now suggest to the group as a whole, that one 
criterion be added to her original three:



            "an organization [must] be



*         international in scope and operations, and



*         its primary mission be of such public importance



*         that it receives multilateral or multinational protection beyond 
ordinary trademark laws, and



*         that some form of special protection for its name and acronym can be 
justified."



We look forward to moving this proposal toward consensus during tomorrow's 
teleconference.



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 Thomas Rickert
Sent: Saturday, February 23, 2013 4:15 PM
To: gnso-igo-ingo@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:gnso-igo-ingo@xxxxxxxxx>
Subject: [gnso-igo-ingo] Proposed protection matrix - to be discussed during 
the next call
Dear all,
based on our discussions, I have below tried to amalgamate the points I have 
perceived to be supported by some in the WG into a consistent set of measures / 
protections / recommendations.

You will see that I have separately dealt with the IOC, RCRC, IGOs and INGOs, 
but still used a definition based on Mary's proposal to give an overall 
rationale for the protections. You will also see that I have covered for each 
of the above:

1. qualification criteria

2. protections for the top level and the second level

3. protections in the launch phase and as of general availability

4. protections that work preventive and preventions that work curative

5. protections for identical matches and similar strings

You will note that I have provided responses for all those aspects for all 
types of organizations separately. As I mentioned, we need to look at the 
organizations separately as no consensus was in sight on determining a unified 
set of criteria.

Also, you will find different protections for different phases / scenarios to 
respond to the proposal (as made by Evan) that the response/protection should 
correspond to the concrete threat or I should better say likelyhood of threat 
(paraphrasing now). To give an example: If someone took the string World Health 
Organization (exact match name of the organization) the threat level would be 
higher than if someone took the acronym (who).

ToDos / Next Steps:

I recommend you go through the proposal one by one per organization (type) in 
question and give feedback whether you are fine with the approach. If you 
think, other protections should be granted, please do explicitly mention them.

If you think that one or more organizations should fulfill other or more 
qualification criteria, please do explicitly mention them and come up with an 
alternative proposal.

If you think that the matrix is not covering all aspects it should include, 
please provide concrete information on what is missing. I know the matrix just 
provides headings and not all information we have exchanged in calls or in 
writing. Completeness for that can be checked by you when you get the draft 
report (which staff is thankfully starting to write up in parallel - thanks to 
Brian and Berry!!!).

If you think that you cannot grant protections to one or more of the 
organization (types) on the basis of the methodology, please spell out 
explicitly and comprehensively what you need to know, add to support a 
recommendation to provide protections. If you do come up with such requests, 
the group will consider whether such request can be responded to. If you think 
you cannot support protections for one or more organizations anyway, please 
indicate.

Since the group has extensively discussed all aspects of the issues in question 
and provided all information that the members regarded relevant were put 
forward, I believe we are now at a point where we should move forward to the 
next stage and work on actual conclusions / proposals.

Hence, you find below a set of recommendations with proposed recommendations 
for all 4 organization(s) types. Please note that these do not necessarily 
reflect my own preference, but such proposals that I think might get some 
support after having listened to all of you for a long time.

We will discuss this set of recommendations during the next call. If you 
provide substantive feedback or alternatives, we will include such information 
if it finds sufficient working group support. If no alternatives are proposed, 
we will refine the proposals with additional explanations and include it in the 
report so that the report can be put out for public comment as soon as 
possible. We will call for view on all 4 organization(s) (types) separately, so 
you can say yes or no to each individually, unless there is broad support by 
the group that we should group the proposals into less than four segments.


Attached you find the:

Proposed protection scheme for organizations that serve the global public 
interest, that are international in scope and operations, and whose primary 
mission is of such public importance that some form of special protection for 
its name and acronym can be justified.

Eligible Organizations:

Meeting two of the following criteria is deemed to be sufficient evidence of 
the above requirements for an organization to be eligible for protections. The 
protection encompasses the name and the acronym of the respective organization 
as well as designations that - as the case may be - are explicitly mentioned in 
a treaty as a protected designation.

- Protection by treaty
- Protection in multiple national jurisdictions (either by virtue of a specific 
law or treaty protection that is enforceable in a multiple jurisdictions 
without the requirement of a specific enactment
- Mission serving the global public interest
- inclusion in the Ecosoc list

I am looking forward to receiving your feedback.

Thomas